Judge’s Research Requires Resentencing

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has remanded a murder conviction for resentencing before a different judge due to the trial judge’s independent research

Servil argues that the court abused its sentencing discretion and violated his due process rights when it acquired the victim’s obituary through its own independent research and then read it into the record. We need not reach Servil’s due process argument because we agree that the court abused its discretion in its retrieval and use of the obituary, and we cannot say that the error was harmless.

Sentence

Here, the sentencing court first announced a basic sentence of forty-five years of incarceration under step one, and then explained how it would proceed in the second step of its analysis, stating: “This second step requires me to examine all relevant mitigating as well as aggravating factors relating to the character and criminal history of the defendant, [the] subjective effect of the crime on the victim, and the protection of the public interest.”

After identifying the applicable mitigating factors in this case, the court began its consideration of aggravating factors by assessing the subjective effect on the victim. The court explained that it thought this part of the sentencing process required it to gain some insight about the victim. To that end, the court indicated that it “obtained a copy of the [victim’s] obituary” and then read the obituary into the record. After identifying and assessing other aggravating factors, the court found the aggravating and mitigating factors were about equal and thus set the maximum sentence at the same forty-five years’ incarceration as the basic sentence.

Although the court correctly addressed the subjective effect on the victim during step two of its analysis, see 15 M.R.S. § 2155(1) (2025), it also relied, in part, on the victim’s obituary. The court read the obituary into the record while analyzing the “subjective effect on the victim,” and specifically noted that the obituary “was very moving to me.” This statement demonstrates that the obituary was a discrete and significant consideration in step two of the court’s sentencing analysis, regardless of any overlap between the information in the obituary and the content of the victim impact statements submitted to the court. Moreover, the court also said during this step that it obtained the obituary on its own, and Servil’s counsel confirmed that the State did not provide a copy of the obituary to Servil before the sentencing hearing. It is clear that given the court’s comment that the obituary was “very moving,” the court’s analysis of the aggravating factors was affected by its independent research.

Despite its laudable goal of thoroughly considering the “subjective effect on the victim” factor, the court’s step-two sentencing analysis relied upon information from an extrajudicial source that was independently obtained, was not provided to the defense ahead of sentencing, and, by the court’s requesting the family’s permission to read it, appeared less than impartial.

WGME 13 reported on the sentencing

Chaos erupted at a Somerset County courtroom moments after a Massachusetts man was sentenced to 45 years in prison for killing a Skowhegan woman.

The victim’s brother charged forward, and he was stopped by a corrections officer with a stun gun and then handcuffed.

Other members of the victim’s family began shouting and moving towards 21-year-old Jason Servil after that but were stopped by officers in the courtroom.

The chaos was captured on a Youtube video.(Mike Frisch)