Jurors seated for criminal trials in Maine have always had one job: deciding whether someone is guilty or innocent based on facts presented at a trial.
Two recent decisions by the state’s highest court could entrust some of them with a bigger responsibility.
For a small number of cases, including rape, kidnapping and manslaughter, jurors may be asked to decide how heinous the crime was in comparison to other crimes.
Then they would actually sentence the defendant, a duty traditionally performed by judges.
“This is new legal territory for Maine,” said Bill Stokes, head of the criminal division for the Maine Attorney General’s Office.
More than a week after the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued the decisions, prosecutors and defense attorneys were still grappling with how it will work.
Both have criticized the state’s top judges for being vague.
“The Law Court hasn’t given us a lot of guidance. There are a lot of questions that haven’t been answered,” said George Hess, the Lewiston defense attorney representing the accused rapist at the center of one of the decisions.
“The mechanics of it are a little confusing,” agreed Norm Croteau, district attorney for Androscoggin, Oxford and Franklin counties. “The opinions raise almost as many questions as they answer.”
///Washington case///
What is the standard to determine heinousness? Will jurors compare one rape to all other crimes or simply to other rapes? What type of evidence will be permitted at sentencing trials?
Will lawyers be allowed to tell jurors about the facts and conclusions of other cases? If not, what will the jurors use for a basis of comparison?
These are some of the questions local lawyers and prosecutors say the Maine Supreme Judicial Court left unanswered when it overturned the sentences in two high-profile cases.
In rulings handed down June 29, Sally Schofield, the former state child-protective caseworker convicted of manslaughter for killing her 5-year-old foster daughter, had her 28-year sentence thrown out.
And Christian Averill, the 24-year-old Sabattus man who raped a Bates College student in a campus bathroom in April 2002, had his 34-year sentence overturned.
The decisions were based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that challenged state and federal sentencing laws.
In the case of Ralph Blakely, a Washington man sentenced in that state to 90 months for kidnapping, the nation’s top court ruled that judges should not be able to increase sentences based on evidence not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Such evidence includes the defendant’s level of remorse or the determination that a defendant’s actions were more heinous than others convicted of the same crime.
Maine has always given judges authority to use this type of information to compare crimes and arrive at individual sentences.
///Most serious///
For Class A crimes, such as manslaughter and rape, Maine used to have a two-tier sentencing formula. People convicted of those crimes could be sentenced to up to 40 years, but sentences of more than 20 years were reserved for the most serious and heinous crimes.
In the Bates rape case, for example, Justice Thomas E. Delahanty II determined that Averill’s apparent lack of remorse and the fact that he pretended to have a weapon to scare his victim showed a “callous attitude toward sex.”
Delahanty, therefore, decided Averill deserved the second tier. He sentenced him to 34 years in prison with all but 24 suspended.
It was that two-tier system that was called into question by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The majority of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the ruling to mean that judges should not be able go into the second tier (20 to 40 years) using information not presented at a trial. That decision should be based on factual findings, made only by jurors using the highest standard of proof, the justices ruled.
Since sentences of less than 20 years do not require a specific finding about the seriousness of the crime, the rulings do not apply to those.
///Change in law///
The Maine Legislature has since changed the law for Class A crimes to avoid this problem.
As of April 2004, anyone who commits a Class A crime can be sentenced by a judge to up to 30 years without any specific findings.
But the old cases may linger.
Other defendants like Schofield and Averill who were sentenced under the old two-tier system to more than 20 years could appeal their sentences. The recent rulings could also affect defendants who committed their crimes before April 2004 and are waiting to be tried or sentenced.
Considering the small number of criminals who get more than 20 years, prosecutors aren’t worried about an onslaught of appeals. They are simply wondering how to proceed with the ones that do go through.
For both Averill and Schofield, prosecutors must first decide if they want to stick with their original requests for sentences of more than 20 years.
If they do, the defendants will have two options: Be sentenced by a judge or a jury. If they pick a jury, a completely new set of jurors would be selected to determine whether their actions were heinous enough to warrant more than 20 years.
Before sentencing trials are scheduled, both sides are hoping for more direction.
“What’s the standard for heinousness?” Stokes asked. “We’ll have to ask the court to clarify that.”
Comments are no longer available on this story