In 1989, the facts pointed to Dennis Dechaine as the killer of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry. They still do.

Dechaine supporters argue the essence of his case instills doubt about his guilt.

The facts, though, are incontrovertible.

Given this, it was striking that three Maine Supreme Judicial Court justices used the essence of the law, rather than facts of the case, to decide an independent panel formed by the Attorney General to review the Dechaine conviction is exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Access Act.

By doing so, the court acted no differently than Dechaine’s supporters, who vociferously contest the essence of his case, while turning a blind eye to copious evidence that supported – and preserves – his conviction.

The court has made an error in judgment.

On the facts, the three-person panel was assembled, had its scope of work created, and its investigation facilitated by the Attorney General. It performed a clear government function, and in doing so, its documents should be public.

In 2004, Attorney General Steven Rowe requested the panelists – two lawyers and a retired magistrate – review the investigation and conviction of Dechaine, in response to virulent criticism by Dechaine supporters.

Each member agreed to serve.

Once impaneled, Rowe outlined their duty – to review five specific allegations about the investigation. The AG provided them public and confidential documents about the case, and made witnesses available.

The panel did not receive funding. At their conclusion, they gave their report to the AG, who released it.

Majority justices, in their opinion, said this panel – in essence – was no different than many unpaid advisory groups retained by government, and is therefore exempt from FOAA.

Yet the Dechaine panel was reviewing a uniquely governmental function – the investigation and prosecution of a crime – and reported to an agency that requested its formation, outlined its duties, and aided its efforts.

That this panel reviewed the controversial Dechaine case is irrelevant.

A review of a jaywalking conviction should be done publicly to preserve, and prevent, the subversion of justice.

It is strange, in this nation of laws, to think government could delegate inquiry into the sanctity of a criminal investigation to a private body. This is not how things are done in the American justice system.

We have little in common with Dennis Dechaine supporters. They scream conspiracy, where we see justice.

The courts truly have nothing in common with his supporters, as their numerous efforts to spring Dechaine on flimsy evidentiary or misconduct challenges have all failed. His supporters simply ignore the facts of the case.

But by exempting the Dechaine review panel from FOAA, so has the court.