The hate crimes trial of a man accused of attacking black men in Biddeford and Portland in 2018 was delayed for a third time Thursday in U.S. District Court in Portland.
Maurice Diggins of Biddeford was supposed to go on trial Tuesday on two counts of committing a hate crime and another count of conspiracy to commit a hate crime. That start was delayed for an unexplained reason Tuesday, and there was no hearing Wednesday because the judge was ill, court authorities said.

They did not immediately respond to a request for the reason behind Thursday’s postponement.
A jury was chosen Monday, and a scheduling order issued Tuesday afternoon said the judge would deal with nonjury matters Thursday morning and then start the trial. Among the nonjury matters is a motion by defense lawyers to bar testimony on Diggins’ tattoos, and testimony from an expert who is expected to say that the tattoos – of swastikas, “SS” lightning bolts, “Dirty White Boys,” and the words “we must secure the existence of our people and future for white children” – are commonly displayed by white supremacists.
Diggins’ lawyer, however, argues that the tattoos weren’t visible during the two assaults at the center of the case, and that there is no evidence Diggins was a member of a white supremacist group.
Diggins’ nephew, Dusty Leo of Biddeford, was facing the same charges as his uncle. Both men are accused of assaulting a black man outside a bar in Portland in April 2018 and shouting racial epithets and then driving to Biddeford, and assaulting another black man and shouting racial epithets outside a convenience store. Both victims received broken jaws.
Leo pleaded guilty to two of the three counts against him last month. A plea agreement says Leo will not contest his sentence as long as it is for less than four years.
The two hate crime charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years each and the conspiracy charge calls for a maximum of five years. All three counts carry fines up to $250,000 each and a period of supervised release of up to three years.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less