Maine’s highest court to decide if state is providing lawyers fast enough to people who can’t afford them

By Marie Weidmayer, Bangor Daily News Staff

BINGHAM — Maine’s highest court heard arguments on Oct. 8 about if the state has met its obligation to provide lawyers to people who cannot afford them.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, the Maine Commission on Public Defense Service and the state of Maine agree that indigent defendants — low-income people who cannot afford a lawyer — should have legal representation as soon as possible. The issues are that if there is a delay in getting that representation, does that violate people’s constitutional rights, and if so, what remedy is appropriate.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in two appeals stemming from a 2022 class action lawsuit brought by the ACLU against the commission and the state because of long delays in receiving competent defense lawyers.

One argument was about if people’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated and the other was about if people have experienced habeas corpus violations, meaning they were unlawfully detained, and if they can be released and have charges dismissed.

“We can all agree we’re supposed to have lawyers, and some of these guys aren’t getting lawyers,” Chief Justice Valerie Stanfill said.

The arguments were at the Upper Kennebec Valley High School in Bingham in front of roughly 75 students.

Kennebec County Superior Justice Michaela Murphy ruled in March that Maine has violated the Sixth Amendment rights of indigent defendants. Under that ruling, people who spend 14 days in jail without a lawyer are eligible to be released with bail conditions, and people who wait 60 days for a lawyer will have charges dismissed. Those charges can be refiled once lawyers are found.

The state and commission agree that the ruling by Murphy was too broad. The ability to release people and dismiss charges is concerning, especially because there are people who are held with probable cause that they committed violent felonies, Assistant Attorney General Paul Suitter said. 

Releasing people and dismissing charges are a last resort, and the state is supposed to find people lawyers first, ACLU attorney Carol Garvan said. That ruling was crafted to “preserve public safety” and doesn’t allow the release of people accused of murder or people who have repeatedly fired their lawyers, she said.

The ruling that people’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated was “judicial overreach,” the commission’s attorney Sean Magenis said. The supreme court should send the case back to the superior court with an explanation of the proper Sixth Amendment standard, he said.

Supreme court justices questioned who is counted in the class action and how it should be grouped. Magenis, the commission’s attorney, said it’s an issue that the class action counts anyone who is without a lawyer after their first appearance. He said the ACLU has failed to name a person in the class who was without a lawyer at a critical stage in their case.

That critical stage can start shortly after that appearance because plea offers can be made starting then, ACLU Chief Counsel Zachary Heiden said. There is a “systemic violation” of people’s rights when they do not receive a lawyer, he said.

“Hundreds of people have waited weeks or months … for their lawyer to show up,” Heinden said.

When the case went to trial in late January, people were waiting an average of 66 days for a lawyer, Garvan said. 

There are about 500 adult criminal cases without a lawyer. That number has grown from roughly 220 cases in June, but is still significantly lower than January when 1,000 cases were without representation. Experts have said that number will skyrocket next year because the commission was underfunded by the state legislature.

The court will issue written opinions in the coming months.