Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Due Process Clause (2)
- 601 (1)
- 602 (1)
- 603 (1)
-
- 611 (1)
- 806 (1)
- AEDPA (1)
- Alternative suspect admissibility in Maine (1)
- Alternative suspect evidence (1)
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (1)
- Appeal (1)
- Child witness (1)
- Competency (1)
- Conservative Supreme Court (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Direct connection doctrine (1)
- Due process (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth amendment (1)
- Fourth amendment (1)
- Great Writ (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Idaho v. Wright (1)
- Pearce (1)
- Post-conviction review (1)
- Probative value (1)
- Reasonable connection standard (1)
- Reconviction (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
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 …
Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes
Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes
Maine Law Review
In State v. Mitchell, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed a jury verdict finding Thomas Mitchell guilty of a 1983 murder. In doing so, the Law Court examined two issues: First, whether the trial court “abused its discretion in excluding evidence of an alternative suspect”; and second, whether the trial court’s decision to admit evidence stemming from an autopsy performed two decades before the trial violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. In reaching the alternative suspect decision, the Law Court held that the evidence proffered by Mitchell did not establish a reasonable …
"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain
Maine Law Review
Young children are frequently precluded from testifying at trial on the grounds of incompetency because they cannot answer questions about abstract concepts regarding “truth” and “lies.” In this situation, should the child’s earlier, out-of-court statements disclosing the abuse and identifying the abuser also be inadmissible? The stakes are huge. If young children cannot testify, and their out-of-court statements are precluded, they simply become safe prey, unprotected by the judicial system. The pivotal question becomes, are there procedures that can ensure fairness both to children and to their alleged abusers? This article argues that a child’s testimonial incapacity at trial ought …
Federal Habeas Review Of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law But An Essential Right, Lynn Adelman
Federal Habeas Review Of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law But An Essential Right, Lynn Adelman
Maine Law Review
I thank the editors of the Maine Law Review for the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the present state of post-conviction review of criminal convictions. This discussion is important and timely both because the quality of the procedures by which state prisoners can obtain post-conviction review varies greatly from state to state and because state prisoners who seek federal court review of their constitutional claims by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus face many obstacles. As a federal district judge, my experience is primarily with the later problem. Thus, in this article, I will offer a few …