PORTLAND, Maine — Inmates often act as their own attorneys in appeals to the state’s highest court, but they almost never prevail.
An inmate at the Cumberland County Jail, who is facing stalking and identity theft charges in federal court, last week won a rare victory when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that he had the constitutional right to attend a hearing on a protection from abuse order sought against him by his ex-girlfriend, who previously lived in South Portland.
Shawn A. Sayer, 42, of Biddeford is serving a 22-month sentence for violation of bail conditions and two counts of violating a protection from abuse order involving the same woman involved in his appeal.
In April, District Court Judge Richard Mulhern denied Sayer’s request to either continue a hearing on his ex-girlfriend’s application for a protection from abuse order or make arrangements for him to appear in court or participate by video or telephone conference.
Mulhern denied Sayer’s request, stating that the law required a final hearing on a protection order be held within 21 days of the filing of the application for the order. Sayer appealed to the Maine Supreme Court and the justices considered it on Dec. 1 in written briefs but did not hear oral arguments.
“Sayer’s incarceration and the need to protect his rights by facilitating his participation in the hearing, either in person or by remote video or audio connection, demonstrated good cause to either make an accommodation to allow him to participate on April 8, 2011, or grant a short continuance of the hearing to allow his participation on another date,” Justice Donald Alexander wrote Dec. 29 for the court.
The justice ordered that the temporary protection from abuse order issued March 21 remain in effect until a new hearing can be held. A date for that hearing has not been set.
“Cases like this are a reminder of why we have appeals courts,” Zachary Heiden, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, said Tuesday in an email. “Here, the law court provides not just a correction for a particular case but also guidance for all courts concerning when a deadline needs to be extended in order to ensure fairness. Balancing the need for rules and the need for fairness is no easy task, and it is not unusual that it should take more than one attempt to get it right.”
Sayer’s legal troubles are far from over, however. He’s scheduled to go on trial next month in U.S. District Court in Portland on a charge of interstate stalking and identity theft. That case involves the same woman who sought the protection from abuse order earlier this year. He pleaded not guilty to the charges in July.
They dated from 2003 to 2006, but after the relationship ended, he continued to stalk her in person and online, according to court documents. She told investigators she moved out of state in May 2009 to escape Sayer’s abuse and harassment.
Sayer allegedly used his former girlfriend’s identity to set up a Facebook page and advertise on Craigslist using her photo and addresses. He advertised that she was seeking casual sexual encounters and men would show up at her home assuming she had posted the so-called requests herself, according to court documents. Sayer also allegedly put online videos of them having sex, which were made with her consent, when they were together.
If convicted on the federal charges, Sayer faces up to 10 years in prison on the stalking charge and up to five years on the identity theft charge. On each charge, he could be ordered to pay a fine of up to $250,000.



The judge allowed him to control and mentally abuse her some more. People wonder why there are happenings like with the Lakes it is because of crap like this. How many more need to die before law enforcement and laws make it harder for these sickos.
Read it again carefully. I don’t think it compares to the Lake case because it did not leave the victim unprotected. They simply upheld his right to due process. He seems like a highly detestable type of person but we can hope that the federal charges will get him some prison time. If the allegations are true, I’m thinking the victim will be better off if he doesn’t survive prison. That way she won’t have to hide from him any more.
There was a protection order in place in the Lake case, protection orders are not physical barriers.
This case is different because the guy is locked up waiting trial on federal charges.
It’s NOT law enforcement.
It’s NOT the laws.
It’s the lawyers.
Yeah, forget due process and rights, not everyone should be entitled to them, ain’t that right, Tiredofyourself?
Yeah Tired of Yourself….Watching Judge Judy are you?
Obviously you have never been in this situation or have loved ones in this situation. By allowing him to reopen this and force her to see him again is a type of control for him. He has wedge himself back into her life and is controlling it. IF he is allowed to particiapte remotely that would be better then him facing her in court in person, at least this way she will not be in the same room. It may not compare to the Lakes because he is behind bars, but this happens all the time! Women place PFA’s on men they move up court dates to fight it therefore controlling the situation. Courts allow it. DHHS gets involved for the sake of children, Judges allow visitation, so DHHS has children and father meet at DHHS, they don’t have mom in a safe place or make Dad wait while she retrieves her children, no she and the children get to hear filth muttered and it becomes her word against his. So John Doe and mrcolorz I stand by what I say this man is still controlling her.
If you read the story more closely, you would know that the temporary restraining order remains in effect.
Jerry Springer drama. Who gives a crap?
If he is a winner , then we are all losers.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/computer-trail-leads-to-suspect_2010-07-03.html
Sounds like he is determined to harass her. He seems smart enough to find her anyway and anywhere she tries to hide. Maybe someone that can’t be traced can convince him to cease his actions…
Pretty easy in most cases to get a restraining order. Paperwork. Some people of both sexes don’t take rejection very well. I had a stalker. In retrospect, there must have been a GPS under my Jeep….he was everywhere I was, post office, Wal-Mart, grocery stores, police department….no coincidence. Even found my child when she drove my vehicle. It’s a very hard way to live and nothing one can do but lock doors and hope for the best.
So you think violence is the lesser of two evils?
This guy harassed the girl for 4 years, even finding her after she changed her name and left the state. He wasn’t going to give up and it was only luck that they were able to catch him. If this guy did this to my daughter and the law couldn’t stop him, I would NEVER let it get to the point where it goes on for 4 years and she has to change her name and move to another part of the country, so yes, in my opinion he would deserve it and I could be just as smart about it as he was. Think about it, if someone was doing this to your family with no end in sight, are you just gonna let it go on and lose your family?
Due process is a good thing. Obomber has just signed a bill to take that away….You can be picked up any time and the military doesn’t need probable cause and you can confined indefinitely…Happy New Year, Amerika
Yeah, Obama wrote that bill all by himself and then voted on it all by himself.
Oh, are you forgetting the overwhelming number of Republicans that voted for it?
Overwhelming? You do know that the dems control the senate, right?
Also, the president’s hypocracy was the point of the original post (thta you obviously ignored or could not understand). Obama said that he wanted to treat all terrorists like criminals. Now he doesn’t even have to treat American citizens like that.
talk about a misleading article title. He didn’t win a case. He won the right to go to court and participate in a protection hearing in which he is the defendant. Big difference.
The appeal concerned the district court’s denial of his petition for a continuance. He won the appeal. That was the case before the Supreme Judicial Court. How can you say the headline is misleading?
There will certainly be the guys on the tiers watching this one closely
see
http://prisontalk.com/forums/
She must have run away with the camra man.
Isn’t there an old saying “He who represents himself has a fool for a client”?
It seems that he just keeps on proving the truth in that.