Back to local news, a friend shared this post, which I read a year ago when it was released. This is what the ACLU and activist judges unleash when they go on their social justice legal crusades that interpret the law in such impractical ways. The woman Leein Hinkley stabbed in 2011 was my kid’s hockey teammate’s mother.
Originally posted on facebook by the Lewiston Police Patrol Union
The Lewiston Police Department Patrol Union stands with our community, other police unions and victims of domestic violence in our shared outrage over recent events. There has been a gross mishandling of justice and we ask that those responsible be held accountable.
So often, investigations into tragedy lead us down a myriad of paths and it’s difficult to pinpoint where things went wrong. In the case of Leein Hinkley, this is not the case. There is a clearly identifiable lapse in the justice system and a judge who blatantly disregarded the safety of a domestic violence victim, our community, and the officers who repeatedly put their lives on the line to respond and apprehend offenders like Hinkley.
In order to frame the incident that happened on June 15th, it is important for those outside the criminal justice system to understand Hinkley’s background. Between 2002 and 2011, Hinkley was arrested nine times by local law enforcement agencies. He served several brief sentences for a variety of crimes from Theft, Criminal Threatening, Assault, Escape, Violation of Bail Conditions, Illegal Possession of a Firearm all the way up to Aggravated Assault and Aggravated Attempted Murder. After viciously stabbing a former girlfriend and an innocent bystander who attempted to intervene, Hinkley then served a fraction of his twenty-year sentence and was released from prison most recently in 2023 after serving a sentence for a probation violation.
Upon his release, Hinkley was on probation, under which strenuous conditions should have required him to be held firmly and promptly accountable. On May 24th of this year, Hinkley then victimized another partner and was charged with Domestic Violence Aggravated Assault, another felony-level offense. Shortly after his arrest, his new victim obtained a Protection from Abuse Order, making her fear for her life apparent to those in our judicial system, who are most capable of offering her protection. Hinkley was held at the Androscoggin County Jail on a probation hold and bail was initially set at $25,000.
On June 7, 2024, only two weeks later, Judge Sarah Churchill lowered Hinkley’s bail down to $5,000, a staggering reduction considering the gravity of his offense and his obvious propensity for violence. At this time, Hinkley’s probation hold remained in place, requiring that he remain in the custody of ACJ. Then on June 12th, only five days later, Judge Sarah Churchill again lowered Hinkley’s bail to $1,500 and removed his probation hold, making it impossible for Probation and Parole to hold him.
The Androscoggin District Attorney’s Office expressed vocal and strenuous objections both times that Judge Churchill lowered Hinkley’s bail. The DA’s Office specifically cited concerns for victim safety, Hinkley’s violent history and concerns about him tampering with his victim. A prosecutor specifically asked that Hinkley be subject to electronic monitoring to enforce a “house arrest” condition, which Judge Churchill declined to impose.
Judge Churchill cited Hinkley’s sixth amendment rights to legal counsel and stated she felt there was a “significant violation” of his rights after only nineteen days of incarceration. It is important to note that an alleged sixth amendment violation requires an analysis for a balancing test, which offers a variety of other remedies for the potential violation besides releasing him from jail. Hinkley was also afforded free legal representation at each of these appearances via the “lawyer of the day.”
Despite a recent statement from the Maine Judicial Branch, Judge Churchill’s decision to release Hinkley was NOT required by law and was done with clear and blatant disregard to public safety. Hinkley’s release was an extreme remedy and should absolutely not even been considered for a person who posed such a clear and foreseeable risk to his victim and the community as a whole.
In the early morning hours of June 15th, a 911 call came in from a panicked female, reporting that her ex-boyfriend was in her home. Hinkley had forced entry into the home of his ex-girlfriend and recent victim. Over the course of the next several hours, two homes were burnt to the ground, a woman was terrorized and an innocent man was killed. Hinkley not only perpetrated crimes against those we should be protecting, but also opened fire on police officers responding to the scene.
Had Hinkley not been released, the events of June 15th would have been entirely avoided. Judge Churchill’s lack of consideration for public safety, lack of concern for victims of domestic violence and failure to appropriately weigh the safety risks before applying an extreme legal analysis led to the ultimate tragedy: loss of human life.
Local police agencies and the District Attorney’s Office have made every effort to hold Hinkley accountable for his violent behavior and have repeatedly been let down once the case is in the hands of the judiciary. It appears that it is far too easy for Judge Churchill to sit behind her bench, safely ensconced behind locked doors and armed judicial marshals, as she makes damaging, life-altering decisions without ever suffering the consequences she so callously inflicts upon the community she is supposed to serve.
We would like to see Judge Churchill held accountable for this failure, as the first step towards a meaningful bail reform. We need to start recognizing that defendants need to be held accountable and appropriate consequences should be dispensed. Judge Churchill’s behavior, and the judicial branch’s defense of it, demonstrates a complete lack of willingness to take responsibility for an obvious error in judgement.