The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction of Saad Zackaria on multiple assault charges, rejecting his claims that evidence should have been suppressed and that his speedy trial rights were violated. The court issued its decision Jan. 13, 2026, in *State of Maine v. Saad Zackaria* (2026 ME 2).
Zackaria was convicted following a jury trial in Cumberland County Superior Court on one count of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, a Class A felony, and two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, both Class C felonies. The charges stem from a June 15, 2021, incident on Congress Street in Portland where two victims reported being struck from behind by a man who caused sharp pain and wounded one victim's back.
The case began when Portland police responded to reports from two victims who described being hit from behind while on Congress Street. Both victims felt sharp pain from the attack, and one sustained a wound on her back after being poked by what appeared to be a sharp object. The victims provided consistent descriptions of their assailant as an African-American male with short spiky hair wearing a green shirt. One victim noted that the attacker carried a backpack and tablet.
Based on these victim descriptions, officers were able to identify the likely suspect as Saad Zackaria. Police determined that Zackaria was probably located at the Preble Street Resource Center, a social services facility in Portland that provides assistance to individuals experiencing homelessness and other challenges.
Zackaria's defense centered on two primary arguments on appeal. First, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained at the Preble Street Resource Center. The specific nature of the evidence obtained at the center and the circumstances of its collection are not detailed in the available portion of the opinion, but Zackaria contended that this evidence was improperly gathered and should have been excluded from trial.
Second, Zackaria claimed that the trial court should have dismissed the charges against him for failure to provide a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Maine Constitution guarantee defendants the right to a speedy trial. Delays in bringing a case to trial can violate these constitutional protections, particularly when the delay is unreasonable and prejudices the defendant's ability to mount an effective defense.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, in an opinion written by Justice Connors, rejected both of Zackaria's arguments and affirmed his convictions. The six-justice panel included Chief Justice Stanfill and Justices Mead, Connors, Lawrence, Douglas, and Lipez. The case was argued before the court on Nov. 13, 2025.
In addressing the motion to suppress, the court applied the standard established in *State v. Gerry* (2016 ME 163), examining the facts as found by the trial court when viewed in the light most favorable to the order denying the motion. This deferential standard of review reflects the principle that trial courts are in the best position to evaluate evidence and witness credibility during suppression hearings.
The charges against Zackaria fall under Maine's assault statutes, specifically 17-A M.R.S. § 208(1)(B) for aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon and 17-A M.R.S § 207(1)(A) for assault with a dangerous weapon. These statutes criminalize the use of dangerous weapons in assaults, with enhanced penalties reflecting the increased risk of serious injury when weapons are involved.
Class A felonies in Maine carry potential sentences of up to 30 years in prison, while Class C felonies carry maximum sentences of five years. The classification of these charges as felonies rather than misdemeanors reflects the serious nature of weapon-enhanced assault offenses and the state's recognition that such crimes pose significant public safety concerns.
The case illustrates the intersection of several important legal principles, including Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights, and state criminal law governing assault offenses. The court's decision to affirm suggests that the trial court properly balanced these competing legal considerations.
The involvement of the Preble Street Resource Center in the case highlights the complex social dynamics often present in urban criminal cases, where defendants may be individuals experiencing homelessness or other social challenges who rely on community service organizations for basic needs.
Zackaria's conviction and the appellate court's affirmation of that conviction demonstrate the Maine criminal justice system's commitment to prosecuting assault cases involving weapons, regardless of the social circumstances of the defendant. The case also shows the high standard defendants must meet when challenging evidence collection and asserting speedy trial violations on appeal.