Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (115)
- Constitutional Law (57)
- Courts (29)
- Evidence (27)
- Civil Procedure (14)
-
- Law and Society (14)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (11)
- Fourth Amendment (10)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (9)
- Civil Law (7)
- Judges (7)
- Litigation (7)
- Jurisprudence (5)
- Legal Profession (5)
- Legislation (4)
- Fourteenth Amendment (3)
- Legal Education (3)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (3)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (2)
- Juvenile Law (2)
- Law and Gender (2)
- Law and Race (2)
- Medical Jurisprudence (2)
- Public Interest (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Keyword
-
- Criminal law (23)
- Evidence (11)
- Criminal procedure (10)
- Maine criminal code (10)
- Fourth amendment (9)
-
- Sentencing (8)
- Constitutional law (7)
- Post-conviction review (7)
- Mens rea (6)
- Right to counsel (6)
- Constitution (5)
- Due process (5)
- Insanity (5)
- Seizure (5)
- Jurisdiction (4)
- Law enforcement (4)
- Maine (4)
- Prison (4)
- Privilege (4)
- Search (4)
- Sentence (4)
- Book review (3)
- Constitutional right (3)
- Counsel (3)
- Criminal (3)
- Criminal trial (3)
- Culpability (3)
- De novo (3)
- Habeas corpus (3)
- Indigent (3)
Articles 121 - 125 of 125
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Kids Will Be Kids: Time For A "Reasonable Child" Standard For The Proof Of Objective Mens Rea Elements, Christopher M. Northrop, Kristina R. Rozan
Kids Will Be Kids: Time For A "Reasonable Child" Standard For The Proof Of Objective Mens Rea Elements, Christopher M. Northrop, Kristina R. Rozan
Maine Law Review
In a line of recent cases that have rocked the world of juvenile law, the Supreme Court relied on the latest brain science research with the timeless knowledge of parents to state forcefully and repeatedly that children are more impetuous, more vulnerable to outside pressures, less depraved, and less culpable for their actions than adults are. Yet criminal statutes refer to the “reasonable person” standard, which does not take into account the age of the accused as the benchmark for guilt or innocence. In doing so, we hold children to an irrelevant and arguably unfairly demanding behavioral ideal, and criminalize …
What Constitutes "Custody" Under Miranda?: An Examination Of Maine's Test As Applied In State V. Kittredge, Elizabeth L. Tull
What Constitutes "Custody" Under Miranda?: An Examination Of Maine's Test As Applied In State V. Kittredge, Elizabeth L. Tull
Maine Law Review
In recent years, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has issued several opinions addressing whether a defendant’s statements are admissible when made to law enforcement in the absence of “Miranda warnings.” These cases have similar features: a defendant made a personally incriminating statement; raised an appeal arguing that Miranda warnings should have been, but were not, read to him or her; and the Court—in many cases—determined that the defendant was not technically in police custody, and thus there was no requirement to recite Miranda warnings to him or her. Miranda warnings are an important safeguard that …
State V. Lovejoy: Should Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence Be Admissible During The State's Case-In-Chief As Substantive Evidence Of Guilt?, Mark A. Rucci
Maine Law Review
Article 1, section 6 of Maine Constitution reads in part that “[t]he accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, property, or privileges . . . .” Further, the Law Court has held that “the State constitutional protection against self-incrimination is the equivalent of the Fifth Amendment." However, as with most provisions of the Constitution, the protection against self-incrimination is open to interpretation. While the Supreme Court has answered some questions surrounding the Fifth Amendment’s protections, it has left many decisions regarding its scope largely within the purview of the …
Knock And Talk No More, Jamesa J. Drake
Knock And Talk No More, Jamesa J. Drake
Maine Law Review
The Supreme Court has set out a roadmap for challenging one of the most common and insidious police tactics used today: the knock-and-talk. The path is short and clear and it leads to the inescapable conclusion that the knock-and-talk—as it is actually employed in practice—is unconstitutional. Although the Court has yet to squarely consider the issue, some Justices have already taken pains to say, in dictum, that knock-and-talks are lawful. Practitioners should not be dissuaded. What this faction of the Court describes is a highly romanticized—and utterly inaccurate—conception of what a knock-and-talk actually entails. The sort of activity that these …
Common Sense And The Law Of "Voluntary" Confessions: An Essay, John C. Sheldon
Common Sense And The Law Of "Voluntary" Confessions: An Essay, John C. Sheldon
Maine Law Review
By admitting to the police Inspector that he murdered two people, Raskolnikov delivers literature's mist famous criminal confession. The Inspector has done virtually nothing to procure the confession; all he did was tell Raskolnikov that he knows Raskolnikov committed the murder. The marvel of the Crime and Punishment is its exploration of Raskolnikov's relentless, multi-faceted conscience, which alone drives him to admit his guilt. Would Raskolnikov's confession be admissible under Maine law? It depends. Here, from its 2013 decision in State v. Wiley,2 is how the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, states the pertinent law: A …