The Maine Supreme Judicial Court dismissed an appeal by Jason J. Follette, who challenged the prosecution of decades-old criminal charges stemming from alleged crimes committed in 1996. The court ruled that Follette's appeal was premature under established procedural rules governing when appeals may be heard.
Follette had filed a pretrial motion to dismiss charges of gross sexual assault and burglary, arguing that the State's delayed prosecution violated either the statute of limitations or his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The trial court in Hancock County denied his motion, prompting the appeal to the state's highest court.
The case originated with crimes allegedly committed in 1996, but the State did not file charges until August 2002. At that time, prosecutors filed a complaint against "John Doe #1, Unknown Male with Matching Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Profile at 13 specified Genetic Locations." The complaint charged the unknown defendant with two counts of gross sexual assault and one count of burglary of a motor vehicle.
According to court documents, the sexual assault charges related to an incident on Aug. 11, 1996, while the burglary charge stemmed from an Oct. 3, 1996 incident. Each offense was subject to a six-year statute of limitations under Maine law at the time.
The timing of the 2002 filing was critical. The State filed the complaint on Aug. 2, 2002, just nine days before the statute of limitations would have expired on the sexual assault charges and approximately 60 days before the limitations period expired on the burglary charge. On the same day, an arrest warrant was issued for the John Doe defendant with the specific DNA profile.
The case remained dormant for two decades as forensic genetic genealogy technology advanced. In 2022, law enforcement sent DNA samples from the crime scene to a private laboratory for additional testing and genetic research. Based on the lab's analysis and subsequent investigative work, authorities eventually identified Jason J. Follette as a suspect matching the DNA profile.
Follette's legal challenge centered on two constitutional arguments. First, he contended that the delayed prosecution violated applicable statutes of limitations. Second, he argued that the lengthy delay between the alleged crimes and his prosecution violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial under the U.S. Constitution.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a "speedy and public trial." Courts typically analyze speedy trial claims by examining factors including the length of delay, reasons for the delay, whether the defendant asserted his rights, and any prejudice to the defendant from the delay.
However, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court did not reach the merits of either constitutional argument. Instead, the court dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, ruling that it was "interlocutory" and did not fall within established exceptions to the final judgment rule.
Under Maine's appellate procedures, most appeals must wait until after a final judgment in the case. The final judgment rule prevents piecemeal appeals that could delay trials and clog appellate courts. Limited exceptions exist for certain types of orders that would be difficult to review after final judgment.
Justice Douglas wrote the opinion for the six-member panel, which included Chief Justice Stanfill and Justices Mead, Connors, Lawrence, and Lipez. The court argued the case on Nov. 12, 2025, and issued its decision on Feb. 5, 2026.
The case highlights the intersection of advancing DNA technology and constitutional protections for criminal defendants. Law enforcement agencies increasingly use genetic genealogy techniques to solve cold cases, sometimes resulting in charges filed years or decades after alleged crimes occurred.
These "John Doe" DNA warrant cases have become more common as prosecutors seek to preserve their ability to file charges before statutes of limitations expire, even when they cannot immediately identify a suspect. The practice allows the State to toll limitations periods by filing charges against an unknown person identified only by DNA profile.
For Follette, the court's dismissal means his constitutional challenges to the prosecution will likely need to be raised again during trial proceedings or in a post-conviction appeal. The underlying criminal charges remain pending in Hancock County Superior Court.
The decision also demonstrates the procedural hurdles defendants face when challenging prosecutorial decisions before trial. While defendants have constitutional rights to challenge charges on various grounds, appellate courts maintain strict rules about when such challenges may be reviewed.
The case reflects broader tensions in the criminal justice system between law enforcement's use of advancing forensic technology to solve old crimes and defendants' constitutional protections against unreasonable delays in prosecution. As genetic genealogy techniques continue to evolve, similar cases challenging delayed prosecutions of decades-old crimes may become more frequent in Maine and other jurisdictions.