Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal procedure (2)
- Deadline (2)
- Excusable neglect (2)
- Excusable neglect standard (2)
- Post-conviction review (2)
-
- Time to respond (2)
- Appeal (1)
- Appellate sentence reform (1)
- Criminal sentence (1)
- Due process (1)
- Fourth amendment (1)
- Grand Juries (1)
- Imminent threat to traffic (1)
- Law enforcement (1)
- Maine supreme judicial court sentence review panel (1)
- Pearce (1)
- Pinkham (1)
- Police stop (1)
- Reconviction (1)
- Resentenced defendants (1)
- Resentencing (1)
- Search and seizure (1)
- Seizure (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sentencing guidelines (1)
- Superior court (1)
- Suspected violation of law (1)
- Traffic stops (1)
- Vindictiveness (1)
- Viollete (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Going Rogue: Independent Grand Juries Throughout America, Nino Monea
Going Rogue: Independent Grand Juries Throughout America, Nino Monea
Maine Law Review
Grand juries today do little more than passively approve (almost never disapprove) indictments proposed by prosecutors. But this stands in stark contrast to grand juries in the past. They investigated cases themselves and their purview went well beyond criminal matters. This Article looks in-depth at three historical cases where grand juries not only conducted major investigations but took on major additional roles. They ousted corrupt public officials, ran their cities in the interim, or booted prosecutors that failed to do their jobs. These examples demonstrate that grand juries in modern society could have a more robust role in the justice …
Wellman V. State: Confusing The Standard Of Excusable Neglect, Andrew L. Black
Wellman V. State: Confusing The Standard Of Excusable Neglect, Andrew L. Black
Maine Law Review
In Maine, as in most other states, a person convicted of a criminal offense is entitled to state post-conviction review upon proper filing of a petition. The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure establish deadlines for such a filing and for the responsive answer by the State. Application for an enlargement of time in which to respond requires the State to show cause. If, however, the State makes this application after the initial period for response, the Rules impose a much stricter standard—a showing of “excusable neglect.” In Wellman v. State the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, …
State V. Violette: Harsher Resentencing Encounters A Bolder Resumption Of Vindictiveness, Thomas C. Bradley
State V. Violette: Harsher Resentencing Encounters A Bolder Resumption Of Vindictiveness, Thomas C. Bradley
Maine Law Review
Twenty-one years ago, in Weeks v. State, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, adopted a rule to prevent judicial vindictiveness when resentencing defendants who had successfully appealed their conviction and been reconvicted. The Weeks court adopted as a state due process protection the United States Supreme Court's rule laid down the preceding year in North Carolina v. Pearce. The Pearce rule provides that harsher resentencing of such defendants creates a presumption of constitutionally prohibited vindictiveness unless the harsher sentence is explicitly based on some identifiable misconduct by the defendant since the prior sentencing. Thus, the Law …
State V. Pinkham: Erosion Of Meaningful Forth Amendment Protection For Vehicle Stops In Maine?, Roger M. Clement Jr.
State V. Pinkham: Erosion Of Meaningful Forth Amendment Protection For Vehicle Stops In Maine?, Roger M. Clement Jr.
Maine Law Review
In State v. Pinkham, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that a police officer's stop of a motorist to inquire and advise about the motorist's improper-but not illegal-lane usage did not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable seizures. The Pinkham decision is the first time that the Law Court has validated the stop of a moving vehicle in the absence of either a suspected violation of law or an imminent, ongoing threat to highway safety. This Note considers whether the Law Court was correct in sustaining the police officer's stop of Ronald Pinkham. …
Wellman V. State: Confusing The Standard Of Excusable Neglect, Andrew L. Black
Wellman V. State: Confusing The Standard Of Excusable Neglect, Andrew L. Black
Maine Law Review
In Maine, as in most other states, a person convicted of a criminal offense is entitled to state post-conviction review upon proper filing of a petition. The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure establish deadlines for such a filing and for the responsive answer by the State. Application for an enlargement of time in which to respond requires the State to show cause. If, however, the State makes this application after the initial period for response, the Rules impose a much stricter standard—a showing of “excusable neglect.” In Wellman v. State the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, …
One Step Forward, One Step Back: Emergency Reform And Appellate Sentence Review In Maine, Amy K. Tchao
One Step Forward, One Step Back: Emergency Reform And Appellate Sentence Review In Maine, Amy K. Tchao
Maine Law Review
Perhaps in no other area of the law is a trial court's power greater than when it is given the task of criminal sentencing. Historically and traditionally, the trial court judge has been given the widest latitude of discretion in determining a proper sentence once a criminal defendant has been found guilty. Indeed, the task of sentencing has been deemed a matter of discretion rather than a question of law. As a result, trial judges historically have not articulated reasons for the sentences that they impose. However, with very few standards or criteria to measure the appropriateness of their decisions, …