On June 17, 1965 Augustus F. Heald, Jr. was convicted of manslaughter in Waldo County Superior Court and sentenced to the Maine State Prison. An initial appeal was denied and Heald began serving his sentence. While in prison Heald continued to pursue his appeal and apparently made a nuisance of himself.
During the years 1969 and 1970 Heald assisted other inmates and took an active part in the filing of numerous complaints in the United States District Court of Maine challenging prison conditions and practices. In his role as "jail-house lawyer" he raised numerous issues including inadequacy of food, lack of medical attention, mail censorship and denial of access to the news media. Prison authorities responded by placing Heald in the "strip cell" naked for six months and keeping him on bread and water for 75 days. According to Heald, he was also beaten.
During the year 1970, Heald's appeal was reinstated and he was released from State Prison pending resolution of his reinstated appeal. Trouble found Heald again and he was arrested in Guilford, Maine. As Piscataquis County Deputy Sheriff Paul Ruksznis was about to handcuff Heald, he noticed the butt of a gun protruding from Heald's jacket pocket.
Heald was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and subsequently convicted. His woe did not end there, however, as the prosecutor immediately moved for trial of Heald as a habitual offender. A new jury was impaneled and Heald was put on trial for violation of the habitual offender statute the next day. The Classification Officer at the prison testified at trial that, out of an inmate population of some four hundred persons, he knew of only one instance where a violation of the habitual offender statute had been charged, although repeat offenders at the prison numbered seventy individuals. Heald was convicted and sentenced to the Maine State Prison for a term of not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years. Heald appealed, claiming selective prosecution.
The Court, in denying Heald's appeal, stressed the informal side of criminal law:
It is well established that a reasonable prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of criminal laws is inherent in our criminal justice system and that the exercise of such discretion does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination unless it is deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification.
The Court went on to explain "many reasons" could exist for the failure to prosecute others subject to habitual offender status including "laxity in prosecutorial agencies." The Court noted "prosecutorial officers are more or less autonomous in their own districts and that no comprehensive authoritative chart, even if the same were proven practical, is available to promote and maintain uniformity in the enforcement of the criminal statutes." Although evidence existed of vindictiveness on the part of Prison authorities, there was no evidence this sentiment was shared by the prosecution, a separate force within the criminal justice system. As such, Heald's appeal was denied.
