On June 7, Leein Hinkley, 43, appeared in Maine District Court in Auburn on domestic violence assault charges for the third time.

Once again, there was no lawyer available under the state’s indigent defense system, and Judge Sarah Churchill reduced his bail to $1,500 cash, which was paid and Hinkley released.

Ten days later, on Saturday, June 17, Hinkley invaded a former girlfriend’s home on Russell Avenue and set it afire along with a neighboring home, and apparently shot the woman’s current boyfriend to death, although the remains haven’t yet been formally identified.

Hours later, Hinkley was shot dead by police on a nearby roof. No firefighting was possible during the standoff, and the houses burned to the ground.

Coming less than a year after Robert Card massacred 18 people in Lewiston last Oct. 25, it was inevitable outrage would follow these traumatic events.

What wasn’t inevitable is that the outrage would involve all levels of law enforcement and extend to the highest levels of state government.

The first salvo came just 24 hours after the crimes from the Fraternal Order of Police and the State Troopers Association, who blamed the judge: “The responsibility now squarely falls on Judge Sarah Churchill,” the police unions said. “Despite the severity of Hinkley’s prior criminal charges, a victim seeking help from the court, and opposition from prosecutors, Judge Churchill essentially let him off the hook.”

The District Attorney, using more measured language, essentially agreed.

On Monday the court system, led by Chief Justice Valerie Stanfill, defended Churchill and cited 6th Amendment guarantees to representation and a speedy trial, saying that Maine has “an insufficient number of attorneys willing to represent the rights of the accused.”

The statement was taken to be aimed at the recently renamed indigent defense commission, now the Commission on Public Defense Services, which is attempting to build a statewide public defender system even as the state relies on the previous system, assignments by judges and court clerks.

While courts are reducing post-pandemic backlogs, the number of unrepresented defendants continues to rise.

Finally, Gov. Janet Mills weighed in, saying, “Based on the facts of the case and my experience as a former defense attorney, district attorney, and attorney general, I strongly disagree with the judge’s decision.”

The governor said Churchill should have appointed a “lawyer of the day” temporarily representing Hinkley and kept him locked up.

We can probably all agree Judge Churchill’s decision had disastrous consequences, but what is gained by all these recriminations, charges and counter-charges, is hard to see.

All those involved should know — especially Mills, given her legal experience and her appointments of both Churchill and Stanfill — that under the canons of judicial ethics, judges cannot respond to criticism, more commonly leveled by disgruntled defendants or victims.

Mills said she will talk to the commission chairman “to consider what more can be done to improve the delivery of legal services,” a sound idea that could have been pursued earlier.

The long delays in assigning counsel have become insupportable, with 800 defendants lacking representation. After Hinkley’s release but before the attack, Churchill dismissed charges against another defendant in a misdemeanor case after 108 days of incarceration without a lawyer — a step judges had tried hard to avoid.

The plain truth is that the state’s indigent defense system is not being managed well, nor is the transition to public defenders going smoothly.

The Legislature, without much involvement from the Governor’s office, funded the beginnings of a new system over two legislative sessions.

There had been credible allegations some lawyers were taking too many cases for which they were not qualified, and overbilling the state. The commission was then reformulated with new gubernatorial appointees.

An interim step raised hourly rates from $80 to $150, but the number of available attorney fell by more than half — a counterintuitive result.

At the same time, the commission had upgraded rostering requirements that effectively excluded all but experienced defense attorneys, who can rarely take additional cases, and limiting the number of cases remaining volunteers could handle.

Various expedients were suggested, including having law students handle routine motions and writs under supervision, and phasing in the new roster requirements. Yet the commission pressed ahead.

It’s time for leadership, not more recriminations. Another portion of the judicial branch statement points the way, calling it “a systemic problem” that “all partners in the criminal justice system must work together to resolve rather than criticizing each other without offering a solution.”

If all parties come to the table and face facts together, perhaps this latest tragedy will not go for naught.

Douglas Rooks has been a Maine editor, columnist and reporter since 1984. He is the author of four books, most recently a biography of U.S. Chief Justice Melville Fuller, and welcomes comment at drooks@tds.net.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

LC Van Savage: Pie, anyone?

Next »

Guest column: Brunswick loggers just doing their job