Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (8)
- Fourth amendment (6)
- Rules of evidence (4)
- Admissibility (3)
- Daubert (3)
-
- Expert testimony (3)
- Law court (3)
- Privilege (3)
- Search and seizure (3)
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Criminal procedure (2)
- Domestic violence (2)
- Federal rules of evidence (2)
- Juror testimony (2)
- Post-conviction review (2)
- Probable cause (2)
- Prosecutorial misconduct (2)
- Rule 702 (2)
- Scientific evidence (2)
- Search (2)
- Seizure (2)
- Supreme court (2)
- Warrant (2)
- 404(b) (1)
- 702 (1)
- 911 calls (1)
- Alternative suspect admissibility in Maine (1)
- Alternative suspect evidence (1)
- Assault (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 36
Full-Text Articles in Law
The New People V. Collins: How Can Probabilistic Evidence Be Properly Admitted?, David Crump
The New People V. Collins: How Can Probabilistic Evidence Be Properly Admitted?, David Crump
Maine Law Review
The California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Collins is a staple in Evidence casebooks. An innovative assistant district attorney in the trial court had presented a mathematician who applied probabilities to questions about the perpetrators’ characteristics. The state supreme court disapproved the injection of an equation featuring what mathematicians call the “product rule.” The opinion contains thank-goodness-we-escaped-that-disaster reasoning and condemnation of this use of mathematics with probabilities. But the court’s analysis probably would be different if the case were decided today, as the “new” People v. Collins. Therefore, this Article considers what the author calls the new People v. …
The Truthsayer And The Court: Expert Testimony On Credibility, Michael W. Mullane
The Truthsayer And The Court: Expert Testimony On Credibility, Michael W. Mullane
Maine Law Review
The purpose of this Article is to analyze the admissibility of expert testimony on credibility. State v. Woodburn serves as a lens to focus on the broader issues. The primary issue is an examination of expert testimony on credibility in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence and their progeny. The Rules of Evidence mandate admission or exclusion of expert testimony based on certain criteria. How are these criteria applied to expert testimony on credibility? How should they be applied? The surprising survivability of other criteria discarded by the Rules is also considered.
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. …
Please Stop: The Law Court's Recent Roadblock Decisions, Jonathan A. Block
Please Stop: The Law Court's Recent Roadblock Decisions, Jonathan A. Block
Maine Law Review
Police checkpoints or “roadblocks” have become an increasingly utilized law enforcement tool. At best, these checkpoints result in only a minor inconvenience to motorists. When abused, however, roadblocks have the potential for invidious invasions of privacy and personal freedom. Roadblocks are designed to deter, and to a lesser extent detect, criminal activity by stopping everyone—both the guilty and the law-abiding—for a brief inspection, thereby impinging to some degree on one's freedom of travel, privacy, and “right to be let alone.” Such “seizures” must be “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment in order to survive constitutional challenge. The major difference between roadblocks …
Sniffing Out The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Place-Dog Sniffs-Ten Years Later, Hope Walker Hall
Sniffing Out The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Place-Dog Sniffs-Ten Years Later, Hope Walker Hall
Maine Law Review
In the endless and seemingly futile government war against drugs, protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution may have fallen by the wayside as courts struggle to deal with drug offenders. The compelling government interest in controlling the influx of drugs all too often results in a judicial attitude that the ends justify the means. Judges can be reluctant to exclude evidence of drugs found in an unlawful search pursuant to the exclusionary rule, which provides that illegally obtained evidence may not be used at trial. The exclusion of drugs as evidence in drug cases often …
Termination Of Hospital Medical Staff Privileges For Economic Reasons: An Appeal For Consistency, June D. Zellers, Michael R. Poulin
Termination Of Hospital Medical Staff Privileges For Economic Reasons: An Appeal For Consistency, June D. Zellers, Michael R. Poulin
Maine Law Review
The relationship between physicians and hospitals is undergoing significant change. Historically, a physician maintained a private practice in the community and looked to the local hospital for ancillary support when his or her patients were too ill to remain at home. This community-based physician gained access to the hospital by obtaining medical staff privileges. These privileges allowed the physician to admit patients to the hospital, treat patients while they were there, and use the hospital's staff and equipment. The physician generally enjoyed the use of the privileges throughout his or her active career, losing them only if found incompetent. Today, …
Life After Daubert V. Merrell Dow: Maine As A Case Law Laboratory For Evidence Rule 702 Without Frye, Leigh Stephens Mccarthy
Life After Daubert V. Merrell Dow: Maine As A Case Law Laboratory For Evidence Rule 702 Without Frye, Leigh Stephens Mccarthy
Maine Law Review
In reaching its recent decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court grappled not with case law but with fundamental questions about the nature of science and its role in law. The court in Daubert addressed the problematic issue of admissibility of expert scientific testimony. In the end the Court rejected as an exclusionary rule the venerable standard set in 1923 by Frye v. United States. Frye held that scientific testimony was to be excluded unless it had gained “general acceptance” in its field. Daubert held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence …
Prosecutorial Summation: Where Is The Line Between "Personal Opinion" And Proper Argument?, James W. Gunson
Prosecutorial Summation: Where Is The Line Between "Personal Opinion" And Proper Argument?, James W. Gunson
Maine Law Review
Prosecutorial forensic misconduct has become front page news in Maine. Since April of 1993, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has reversed convictions in three highly publicized cases based on remarks made by the prosecutor. In State v. Steen, the prosecutor asked the defendant to give his opinion concerning the veracity of other witnesses and suggested in closing argument that the favorable testimony given by the defense's expert witness resulted from the fee he had received. The Law Court vacated the gross sexual assault conviction, finding that the prosecutor's questions and closing argument “clearly suggested” to …
State V. Nelson: Determining "Reasonable Suspicion" For Investigatory Stops In Maine, Sandra Denison Shannon
State V. Nelson: Determining "Reasonable Suspicion" For Investigatory Stops In Maine, Sandra Denison Shannon
Maine Law Review
In 1994 the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held in State v. Nelson that a police officer's observation of motorist Theodore Nelson consuming a single can of beer over a one-hour time period did not, by itself, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Nelson thereafter illegally operated the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. This Note analyzes the Law Court's decision in Nelson. In its analysis, this Note compares Nelson to several other Maine opinions and recommends that, if the Maine Law Court is to continue to adhere to both objective and subjective standards in …
Trammel V. United States: Bad History, Bad Policy, And Bad Law, Michael W. Mullane
Trammel V. United States: Bad History, Bad Policy, And Bad Law, Michael W. Mullane
Maine Law Review
In 1980 the United States Supreme Court decided Trammel v. United States. The opinion changed the Spouses' Testimonial Privilege, overturning centuries of consistent case decisions. The Court based its decision on the history and effect of privilege and a straw poll of state legislative and court decisions on the issue. The Court concluded its decision would permit the admission of more spousal testimony without impairing the benefits the privilege was supposed to confer on spouses. The Court's decision in Trammel was wrong on three counts. The first was bad history overlaid with questionable analysis. The survey of the state's treatment …
Whren V. United States: An Abrupt End To The Debate Over Pretextual Stops, Brian J. O'Donnell
Whren V. United States: An Abrupt End To The Debate Over Pretextual Stops, Brian J. O'Donnell
Maine Law Review
In Whren v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, even if the stop is a pretext for the investigation of a more serious offense. The Court affirmed the convictions of Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown, who had been arrested on federal drug charges after Washington, D.C., police stopped Brown for minor traffic infractions. The Court's unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Scalia, brought an end to a long-running debate over the proper …
A Call For Consistency: State V. Caouette Is No Longer Viable In Light Of Colorado V. Connelly And State V. Eastman, Donald W. Macomber
A Call For Consistency: State V. Caouette Is No Longer Viable In Light Of Colorado V. Connelly And State V. Eastman, Donald W. Macomber
Maine Law Review
This Article challenges the Law Court's expansive interpretation in State v. Caouette of the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination embodied in Article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution in the context of reviewing claims of the involuntariness of a confession. The court's declaration that a reliable confession must be suppressed on state constitutional grounds based solely on a suspect's internal factors, and in the absence of any police overreaching in obtaining the confession, contradicted two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence requiring some form of government action to implicate the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of …
Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett
Maine Law Review
In State v. Carter, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant had “standing” to challenge an alleged search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer who had peered in the window of an apartment where the defendant was participating in a drug-packaging operation with the apartment's leaseholder. A divided court held that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment. Therefore, the defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the police officer's observations pursuant to the Fourth …
Identifying And Preventing Improper Prosecutorial Comment In Closing Argument, Robert W. Clifford
Identifying And Preventing Improper Prosecutorial Comment In Closing Argument, Robert W. Clifford
Maine Law Review
In recent years, several decisions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court have addressed the comments of prosecutors in final argument before criminal juries. Three of those decisions in particular have caused concern among prosecutors and have stirred discussion in the Maine legal community. In vacating convictions in State v. Steen, State v. Casella, and State v. Tripp, the Law Court focused on the language used by the prosecutors during closing argument and concluded that those prosecutors impermissibly expressed personal opinion concerning the credibility of the defendants, or witnesses called by the defendants. This Article examines …
Evaluating The Reliability Of Nonscientific Expert Testimony: A Partial Answer To The Questions Left Unresolved By Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Evaluating The Reliability Of Nonscientific Expert Testimony: A Partial Answer To The Questions Left Unresolved By Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael, Edward J. Imwinkelried
Maine Law Review
For almost three-quarters of a century, the venerable standard announced in Frye v. United States governed the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down the Frye decision in 1923. Under Frye, the proponent of testimony had to demonstrate that the expert's testimony was based on a generally accepted theory or technique. However, in 1993--seventy years after the rendition of the Frye decision--another court sitting in Washington, the United States Supreme Court, overturned the standard. The Court did so in its now celebrated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision. In the interim between …
Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack
Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack
Maine Law Review
Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance of expert …
State V. Brackett: Does The State Have A Right Of Appeal?, Theodore A. Small
State V. Brackett: Does The State Have A Right Of Appeal?, Theodore A. Small
Maine Law Review
In State v. Brackett, the defendant was charged with kidnapping, gross sexual assault, burglary, and criminal threatening with the use of a dangerous weapon. The State of Maine filed an in limine motion to exclude any evidence relating to the victim's past sexual behavior, including evidence that the victim may have been a prostitute sometime prior to the incident in dispute. Although evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior is generally inadmissible. The State appealed. A divided Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, declined to rule on the merits of the appeal, holding that the appeal was …
No Need For Cities To Despair After Bank Of America Corporation V. City Of Miami: How Patent Law Can Assist In Proving Predatory Loans Directly Cause Municipal Blight Under The Fair Housing Act, Jesse D.H. Snyder
Maine Law Review
Lack of sanguinity for cities was manifest after the Supreme Court’s May 1, 2017, opinion in Bank of America Corporation v. City of Miami. Although Bank of America recognized that cities have Article III standing to sue for economic injuries suffered from predatory lending, the Supreme Court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s more lenient causation standard, favoring proof of “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” Doubtless the result could have been worse for cities suing on the premise that racially discriminatory lending caused municipal blight. The courthouse doors could have closed if the Court had …
Close Enough For Government Work: Proving Minimal Nexus In A Federal And Firearms Conviction: United States V. Corey, Barbara H. Taylor
Close Enough For Government Work: Proving Minimal Nexus In A Federal And Firearms Conviction: United States V. Corey, Barbara H. Taylor
Maine Law Review
In United States v. Corey, Alvin Scott Corey was found guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon. Although Corey's possession of a Smith and Wesson shotgun violated Maine law, Corey was prosecuted in the United States District Court under the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and its penalty statute, § 924(e). On appeal, Corey argued that one of the requirements for his conviction, proof of the statute's jurisdictional element, had not been satisfied because that proof rested on expert testimony based, in part, on hearsay. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split decision, affirmed Corey's conviction, …
Scientific Evidence And Forensic Science Since Daubert: Maine Decides To Sit Out On The Dance, Thomas L. Bohan
Scientific Evidence And Forensic Science Since Daubert: Maine Decides To Sit Out On The Dance, Thomas L. Bohan
Maine Law Review
In 1993, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that with the federal adoption of statutory rules of evidence in 1975, the common law rule for determining admissibility of scientific testimony was superseded, and that thenceforth admissibility of scientific testimony was to be determined solely by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Rule 702). The Frye standard had been adopted in one form or another by most of the federal circuits and by many of the state courts during the 70 years preceding Daubert. Referred to as the “general acceptance” standard, the Frye standard--although adopted in a variety of forms--had …
Contemplating The Use Of Classified Or State Secret Information Obtained Ex Parte On The Merits In Civil Litigation: Bl(A)Ck Tea Society V. City Of Boston, Brian M. Tomney
Maine Law Review
In Bl(a)ck Tea Society v. City of Boston, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, without dissent, a district court's ruling denying protesters at the 2004 Democratic National Convention a preliminary injunction designed to force the City of Boston to modify its designated demonstration zone (DZ) and remove some of the draconian security measures surrounding the zone. The injunction was denied by Judge Woodlock after he personally inspected the DZ and determined that, given “constraints of time, geography, and safety,” there were no viable alternatives—to site location or construction of the DZ itself—that could reasonably occur before the convention started. …
Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond
Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond
Maine Law Review
In State v. Wright, 1 the State of Minnesota charged David Wright with possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of second-degree assault against his girlfriend and her sister. A jury found Wright guilty on all charges and sentenced him to sixty months in jail for each crime, with sentences served concurrently. Wright’s girlfriend, R.R., and her sister, S.R., did not testify against him at trial. The prosecution, however, used the transcript of a 911 call placed by R.R. against Wright in the trial. Although the 911 call was hearsay, the court admitted it under Minnesota’s excited …
Unconstitutional Asymmetry Or A Rational Basis For Inconsistency? The Admissibility Of Medical Malpractice Prelitigation Screening Panel Findings Before And After Smith V. Hawthorne I And Ii, Matthew Asnault Morris
Unconstitutional Asymmetry Or A Rational Basis For Inconsistency? The Admissibility Of Medical Malpractice Prelitigation Screening Panel Findings Before And After Smith V. Hawthorne I And Ii, Matthew Asnault Morris
Maine Law Review
Pre-litigation screening panels have been instrumental in streamlining medical malpractice litigation in the State of Maine by culling claims from superior court dockets, encouraging settlements, and providing findings of fact that could prove useful for a jury if the case proceeds to trial. In enacting one particular provision governing the confidentiality and the admissibility of the screening panel process, however, the legislature may have sacrificed the constitutional rights of medical malpractice claimants in favor of a lighter docket. Two recent cases before the Law Court, Smith I and II, have challenged the constitutionality of Maine’s unique statutory approach to the …
Opportunity Lost, Opportunity Found: A Proposal To Amend Maine's Rule Of Evidence 404 To Admit "Prior Acts" Evidence In Domestic Violence Prosecutions, Tina Heather Nadeau
Opportunity Lost, Opportunity Found: A Proposal To Amend Maine's Rule Of Evidence 404 To Admit "Prior Acts" Evidence In Domestic Violence Prosecutions, Tina Heather Nadeau
Maine Law Review
In 2008, thirty-one people were the victims of homicide in the state of Maine. Even more startling: nineteen of these homicides stemmed from domestic violence, possibly the largest number of domestic-violence-related killings in the state's history. This means that nearly 70 percent of Maine's homicides in 2008 were the result of domestic violence. Amendments made in 2007 (and implemented in February 2008) to Maine's Criminal Code have criminalized particular instances of domestic violence as “enhanced” crimes of violence. This allows prosecutors to consider “prior acts” of domestic abuse when deciding how to charge a criminal defendant accused of a domestic-violence-related …
Racism, Juries, And Justice: Addressing Post-Verdict Juror Testimony Of Racial Prejudice During Deliberations, Andrew C. Helman
Racism, Juries, And Justice: Addressing Post-Verdict Juror Testimony Of Racial Prejudice During Deliberations, Andrew C. Helman
Maine Law Review
From the beginning, race played a role in the prosecution of Christopher McCowen for the rape and murder of well-known fashion writer Christa Worthington. To some, the trial was even a spectacle and treated as “one of the most spectacular homicide cases in [Massachusetts'] history.” It quickly became a “made-for-cable-news tale of the heiress fashion writer and her lowly Portuguese fisherman lover, illicit sex, and an out-of-wedlock child,” all set in a seaside village. McCowen, an African-American garbage man, was right in the middle of it; police and prosecutors did not believe his assertions that he had consensual sex with …
"Another Day" Has Dawned: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Holds Laboratory Evidence Subject To The Confrontation Clause In State V. Mangos, Reid Hayton-Hull
"Another Day" Has Dawned: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Holds Laboratory Evidence Subject To The Confrontation Clause In State V. Mangos, Reid Hayton-Hull
Maine Law Review
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause guarantees criminal defendants the right to “confront witnesses against them.” Specifically, the Clause ensures a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses who testify against him by the unique medium, or “crucible,” of cross-examination. Although federal and state rules of evidence prohibiting hearsay and the Confrontation Clause are designed to protect similar interests, whether or not admission of a piece of evidence violates a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause is a separate analysis than whether that same piece of evidence is admissible under a rule of evidence. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court held …
The Supreme Court's Long And Perhaps Unnecessary Struggle To Find A Standard Of Culpability To Regulate The Federal Exclusionary Remedy For Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment Violations, Melvyn H. Zarr
Maine Law Review
On January 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Herring v. United States. In Herring, the defendant moved to suppress evidence that he alleged was seized as a result of an arrest that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court approved the decision below to deny suppression of the evidence. The decision set off a flurry of speculation that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule would not see its 100th birthday in 2014. A headline in the New York Times of January 31 declared: “Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling.” Another …
State V. Thurston: An Examination Of Assualt, Self-Defense, And Trespass In Relation To Domestic Violence, Megan E. Magoon
State V. Thurston: An Examination Of Assualt, Self-Defense, And Trespass In Relation To Domestic Violence, Megan E. Magoon
Maine Law Review
Darrell Thurston and Suzanne Harmon were romantically involved on an intermittent basis for five years and had one child together. As a result of an altercation that took place at Harmon’s home in Sullivan, Maine, on September 27, 2007, between Thurston and Harmon, Thurston was charged with assault, criminal mischief, and obstructing report of crime or injury. The testimony during the trial illuminated the major factual differences between Thurston’s and Harmon’s accounts of the night the incident took place. Thurston requested a self defense jury instruction based on his version of what had happened, which the trial court ultimately denied. …
Findings Of Fact Vs. Conclusions Of Law: How The Law Court Complicated The Case Of State V. Connor, Christopher S. Boulos
Findings Of Fact Vs. Conclusions Of Law: How The Law Court Complicated The Case Of State V. Connor, Christopher S. Boulos
Maine Law Review
In State v. Connor, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, upheld a trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Although the evidence presented in the suppression hearing seemed adequate to support the denial of the motion, the trial judge failed to clearly state his conclusions of law when denying the motion. However, the Law Court mistook the ambiguous conclusions of law as ambiguous findings of fact. Because the findings of fact were ambiguous in the court’s view, the majority and dissenting opinions spent the bulk of their energies discussing how the court should review …
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 …