Abstract
The Maine judicial system has two levels of criminal courts, the superior court having exclusive trial jurisdiction over felony prosecutions and the district court operating with concurrent trial jurisdiction for misdemeanors. The district court also processes the preliminary phases of felony cases; included in this function are bail hearings, initial appearances (arraignments), and preliminary hearings. To provide jury trials in misdemeanor prosecutions state law permits all district court convictions to be appealed to the superior court for trial de novo to a jury. The accepted reason for unlimited de novo trials is that the state constitution requires a jury in all criminal cases; initial processing through the district court is felt to be a device for sifting out the great bulk of cases, thereby preserving judicial resources of the superior court. In this manner the Maine system accommodates the individual's right to jury trial and the state's interest in allocating its judicial resources. But the balance thus struck may be the worst possible one for both the state and those accused of crime. On the one hand, cases which should never reach the superior court level—or perhaps any true court—are permitted to clog dockets, and on the other, individuals being prosecuted for serious crimes unfairly are denied an initial jury trial or, as a practical matter, may never receive the verdict of a jury. At the close of its last term the United States Supreme Court decided several cases which bode fundamental change for the Maine district court system. Almost certainly under the case of Baldwin v. New York, de novo procedures fall short of constitutional requirements. Thus, problems of jury trial are the major concern here.
First Page
63
Recommended Citation
Pierce B. Hasler,
De Novo Juries, Misdemeanor Counsel, and Other Problems: Changes Ahead for the Maine District Courts?,
23
Me. L. Rev.
63
(1971).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol23/iss1/19