STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
YORK, SS ALFRED
CRIMINAL DOCKET

ALFSC-CR-15-1106

STATE or MAINE,
PLAINTIFF

TREVOR L. SANBORN,


i
1
vs ORDER

i

DEFENDANT 

On January 26, 2016, the Court, after hearing, granted Defendant?s Motion to
Dismiss. The dismissals in both docket numbers, and ALFSC-
were with prejudice. The State of Maine filed a Motion to
Reconsider and Request for Written Findings of Fact bearing no date, but received
by the Clerk?s Office on February 10, 2016 at 3:36 p.rn. Defendant filed his Reply to
State?s Motion to Reconsider and Request for Written Findings of Fact dated
February 18, 2016, and received by the Clerk?s Office on February 18, 2016, at 3:45
pm

After carefully reviewing the State?s Motion to Reconsider, as well as
Defendant?s Reply, or opposition, to the State?s Motion to Reconsider, the Court
issues the following Order: State?s Motion to Reconsider is Denied.

With respect to the State?s Request for Written Findings of Fact, the Court
responds as follows:

After reviewing the contents of the Court?s files in docket numbers ALFSC-
and and in light of the arguments presented
by both the State and Defense on December 15, 2015, and on January 26, 2016, the
Court finds that the State has not provided discovery in a timely manner. The State
relied heavily on representations made to it by the Warden Service regarding
Defendant?s reasonable and timely discovery requests, but it is clear that the State
did not provide all discovery. It is regrettable, from a practice of law point of view,
invoking the late Chief Iustice Vincent McKusick?s oft-repeated call for comity
that the State essentially ?stonewalled? Defendant?s discovery requests.

Gyms/Hy Dr? 0111261
er  797905944"

The State?s long delay in providing Defendant with the name of the secret law
enforcement operative is unexplicabie. The State?s refusal to provide the name of
the law enforcement official delayed this case to the prejudice of the Defendant. It
appears that the State maintained a position of not doing due diligence in
responding to Defendant?s multiple requests for discovery, resulting in needless
delay and additional litigation costs. Early on, the State could have, and should have,
inquired of the Warden Service regarding the notes prepared by the secret unnamed
law enforcement operative, but that did not happen, thus depriving Defendant of
important discovery. The State neglected to ascertain, in a timely way, what
evidence existed and, thus, failed to determine in a timely way, ifit were
discoverable. From the record, the Court finds that the State did not make timely
reasonable efforts to determine what materials were within the State?s control,
including within the control of the Warden Service and its agents. Further, the State
did not adequately respond to clear and specific defense requests for information.
The State, in its reliance of the Warden Service and its apparent quest to shield the
identity of the secret law enforcement operative, resulted in a nine month failure by
the State to comply with reasonable, and repeated, defense requests for discovery.

It is troubling that the State did not adequately respond to Defendant?s discovery
requests over a nine month period.

it is always fitting to remember that: ?The State while charged with
rigorously enforcing the laws ?has a duty to not only secure appropriate convictions,
but an ever higher duty to see that justice is done.? In his role as the State?s
representative in criminal matters, the prosecutor, therefore, must not only attempt
to win cases, but must see that justice is done.? Walker v. State 624 P.2d 687 [Utah
1981). The road towards justice begins with full and timely disclosure of discovery.
Regrettably, that did not happen in this case.

 

Dated:  2Q, 020/5  aim

Michael P. Cantara
judge
Maine District Court