USA v. SIROIS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:21-cr-00175-LEW
)
LUCAS SIROIS, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR JUDICIAL ACTION AND
MOTION TO SEAL
Based on the social media activity of Defendants Lucas Sirois and Robert Sirois,
the Government seeks an order granting relief under Local Rule 157.3. Mot. for Judicial
Action (ECF No. 649). The Government also seeks to keep its Motion under seal to avoid
stirring up media attention in the lead up to trial. Motion to Seal (ECF No. 648).
The Motions are denied for the reasons that follow.
B ACKGROUND
This case involves an alleged marijuana trafficking conspiracy. 	The Superseding
Indictment (ECF No. 595) charges eight counts against five defendants. The case has been
pending for four years and trial is set to begin on November 12, 2025.
Defendants Lucas Sirois and Robert Sirois have social media accounts on which
they have posted content encouraging others to participate in a multi-day “Banger in
Bangor,” an event they describe as a “rally for cannabis rights.” 	In effect, the posts
encourage attendance at their trial to protest their prosecution. In addition, Robert Sirois
has expressed encouragement for jury nullification based on the theme “No Victim = No
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 668 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Crime = Not Guilty.” According to Robert Sirois, his counsel told him to do what he can
to ensure that the courtroom will be full of supporters. Robert Sirois also has complained
on social media that the Government is taking the position that Maine medical marijuana
law is irrelevant to the determination of the charges against him.
The Government anticipates a substantial turnout at the trial, both in the courtroom
and outside near the courthouse, and asks the Court to issue an order that will ensure that
trial proceedings are orderly. The Government also expresses concern over speech activity
that calls for jury nullification. The Government therefore requests a special order that (1)
designates where Defendants’ supporters can gather outside the courthouse; (2) establishes
rules of decorum; and (3) directs Defendants not to advocate for jury nullification in their
public speech activity.
D ISCUSSION
Rule 157.3 of the District of Maine Local Rules governs “special orders” to protect
the right of the accused to receive a fair trial with an impartial jury. A need for such orders
commonly arises in criminal cases that are “widely publicized” and/or “sensational.” 	D.
Me. Loc. R. 157.3. Recent examples of such cases include the Karen Read trial in Norfolk,
Massachusetts, and the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial in Boston, Massachusetts, two cases that
clearly qualify as widely publicized and sensational. 	Although the Court appreciates the
Government’s concern for an orderly trial, it remains to be seen whether this case will
garner wide or sensational public interest. 	Furthermore, even if there is a substantial
turnout of members of the public who support the legalization of marijuana generally or
who oppose the decision to prosecute Defendants specifically, the Court has no reason, at
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 668 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
least at present, to anticipate that they would prove unruly or disruptive, or that the ordinary
measures observed by the U.S. Marshal Service and court security personnel will be
inadequate to prevent protest activity in or on the grounds of the federal building; ensure
unimpeded and harassment-free access to the courthouse by the parties, counsel, witnesses,
and members of the jury; and prevent the disruption of proceedings by those present in the
courtroom. 	If counsel are encouraging their clients to “pack the courtroom with
supporters” as has been suggested in the Government’s filings, so be it. It is often my hope
that more courtrooms were full of interested and engaged citizens to observe firsthand what
we do in these beautiful but often empty spaces. 	However, as counsel also know, this
should not be interpreted as an invitation to disregard regular order and appropriate
decorum in the courtroom, where after all, we will be conducting a trial. 	Just as the
integrity of the trial process is protected by the faithful application of the rules of law,
evidence and procedure, so too will it be protected by the expectation of proper decorum
by those who are there to observe.
For this reason, the Government’s request for a special order is at this time denied
without 	prejudice. 	Should 	circumstances 	call 	for 	revisitation 	of 	this 	ruling, 	the
Government may again request the issuance of a special order, including orally in open
court.
As for the matter of Robert Sirois’s social media posts advocating jury nullification,
the Court has faith in the jury selection process, the petit jury as an institution, and the
jury’s ability to follow my instruction that they are to apply the law as I give it to them,
whether they agree with the law or not. 	Therefore, I decline to censor the Defendants’
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 668 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
social media speech activity and leave it to counsel to advise their clients concerning the
boundary line between free speech in support of public attendance at the trial and an
indictable federal offense.1
Finally, in regard to maintaining the seal on these Motions, “[c]ourts have long
recognized ‘that public monitoring of the judicial system fosters the important values of
quality, honesty and respect for our legal system.’” In re Providence Journal, 293 F.3d 1,
9 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Siedle v. Putnam Inv., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)). The
Government’s Motions are “judicial records” that the public would expect to have access
to, United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 56 (1st Cir. 2013); indeed, the Motions concern,
in part, the terms on which members of the public might access the courthouse or engage
in protest activity outside it. Given this context, I am not persuaded that Rule 157.4 (which
the Government cites in support of the seal) overrides the public’s right to access and
monitor the judicial process. In fact, there may be a good deal of benefit to the public for
it to better understand the rules of the road and the delicate balance of the tensions of the
competing interests that we must contend with in order to ensure a fair trial.
CONCLUSION
The Government’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 648) and Motion for Judicial Action
(ECF No. 649) are DENIED. The Government may make a renewed request for a Local
1 Defendants’ counsel are reminded that, as officers of the court, their freedom to advocate publicly on
behalf of such notions is restricted, as they no doubt already appreciate. See, e.g., D. Me. Loc. R. 157.4.
In terms of the boundary line between lawful free speech activity and indictable speech activity, now that
a jury has been selected in this case, it is a federal offense to attempt to influence the decision of a juror by
means of a “written communication” on “any issue or matter pending before such juror . . . or pertaining to
his duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 1504.
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 668 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Rule 157.3 special order based on circumstances existing during the trial, if warranted,
including by oral motion in open court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 668 Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>