The United States Supreme Court has decided Kansas v. Cheever with Justice Sotomayor delivering the Court's unanimous opinion. The decision overturns the Kansas Supreme Court and approves the prosecution’s use of statements a defendant made in a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation to rebut the defense expert's testimony that Cheever lacked the mens rea because of intoxication. Cheever did not consent to the evaluation and never raised a traditional mental health defense. At his trial for the 2005 killing of a Sheriff, the rebuttal evidence was allowed, Cheever was convicted and sentenced to death.
Click for Info About The Author:
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Robert Evon Pleads Guilty to Drug Trafficking in NY Federal Court
Now that's a Coke Machine! |
Labels:
Evon,
Federal Law,
news,
Trafficking
Monday, November 25, 2013
Portland's Marijuana Ordinance: FAQs & the Mythical Marijuana Arrest
Reports of my legalization have been greatly exaggerated |
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
City Ordinance Would Legalize Marijuana in Portland, Maine...Kinda
I found one of these on my door this weekend |
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The Banality of False Confession: This American Life and Detective Jim Trainum
Detective Jim Trainum |
Labels:
false confession,
news
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
David Jones and Former Attorney Implicated in Federal Drug Trafficking
David Jones, AKA Dave Kaos, of Portland Maine was arrested late last week on a federal drug trafficking charge. The complaint alleges a single count of conspiracy to distribute 100 kg or more of marijuana. He faces up to 40 years in prison.
Labels:
Drugs,
news,
Trafficking
Monday, September 23, 2013
Rhonda Nappi has Died
There's a Rhonda Photo Gallery at the link. I like this photo because it shows a palm tree on her head |
Labels:
news
Monday, September 9, 2013
Robert Evon Denied Bail, Accused of International Drug Conspiracy
Last week I wrote about Robert Evon, former owner of Portland's Port City Music Hall. He was arrested on Federal Drug Trafficking charges in Portland. He was then transferred to Syracuse New York since the case was indicted out of that district. He had an arraignment there on 8/30/13 and plead not guilty. Evon remained in custody pending a detention hearing set for 9/4/13. At that hearing, the Judge heard evidence that Evon was part of an international drug smuggling operation involved with importing 77 kilograms of cocaine. She then denied him bail.
Labels:
Drugs,
Evon,
Federal Law,
Trafficking
Friday, September 6, 2013
Debra Milke, On Death Row since 1990, May Be Bailed Today Pending Retrial
In 1990, Arizona prosecutors convinced a Jury that Debra Milke had two men kill her four year old son in order to collect a $5000 life insurance policy. She has always maintained her innocence. The two others confessed but would not testify against her at trial. The only evidence connecting her to the killing is her own confession which, despite orders from a detective supervisor, was not recorded or witnessed by anyone other than the lead detective. Thought it was not told to the defense at the time. detective has a long history of lying to improve his cases. Milke denies confessing.
Labels:
appeal,
habeas,
prosecutorial misconduct
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Proposed 72 Hour Hold for Maine Prisoners is Withdrawn
In Maine, prisoners are generally entitled to a court hearing within 48 hours of arrest. In some areas, staff and funding shortages have made if difficult to comply with the mandate. The proposal to "fix" the problem did nothing to foster compliance with the law. Instead, it would have changed the 48 hour rule to allow for up to 72 hours of pre-hearing detention. I was happy to learn today that the proposal has been withdrawn.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Federal Drug Charge for Robert Evon, Former Port City Music Hall Owner
Robert Evon, the former owner of Portland's Port City Music Hall, has been indicted on Federal Cocaine Trafficking charges. The Indictment comes from the Northern district of New York and alleges a single count of violating 21 USC § 846 by conspiring to possess and to distribute powder cocaine, in violation of 21 USC § 841(a)(1). The Government also alleges that the conspiracy involved 5 kilograms or more triggering a mandatory minimum 10 year prison sentence. The maximum sentence is life.
Labels:
Drugs,
Evon,
Federal Law,
Trafficking
Friday, August 30, 2013
Can Police Paralyze Me and Probe my Ass for Drugs? 6th Circuit Says No
I'm sure many of you have asked this same question. Up until Monday, the answer, at least in the Sixth Circuit, was "yeah." But in what can only described a victory for those who oppose non-consensual anal penetration, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the conviction of a man who was involuntarily paralyzed, intubated, attached to a breathing machine and anally probed for drugs. The case is United State v. Felix Booker. The fact that it ever went to trial demonstrates just how egregious police conduct must be before it will violate constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Suspended Suspension for ADA Mary Kellett's Misconduct
ADA Mary Kellett |
Labels:
prosecutorial misconduct
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Presumed Innocent but Already Sentenced: 72 Hour Hold for Prisoners
48, 72, what's the big deal? Image: kangotrageler via flickr |
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Warrant Now Required to Collect Maine Cell Phone Location Data
Nicola since 1972 via flickr |
Labels:
legislation,
privacy,
Search
Monday, June 24, 2013
Alleyne v. United States: An Element By Any Other Name...
In Alleyne v. United States, the Supreme Court dropped the biggest bombshell on criminal sentencing since Booker in 2005. The holding is relatively simple, overruling the 2002 case Harris v. United States to find that any fact which increases the minimum sentence for a crime must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot be found by a judge on a preponderance standard. This renders current federal sentencing procedure unconstitutional and invalidates the sentencing schemes in a large number state jurisdictions. It's an important decision that has been a long time coming, but it leaves some big questions unanswered.
Labels:
appeal,
mandatory minimum,
SCOTUS,
sentence
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Maine Legislature Considers L.D. 415 and Limits on Cell Phone Tracking
Maine's Law Factory |
Maine is one of the few states that are considering legislation to regulate access to cellphone records. L.D. 415, sponsored by Assistant Senate Minority Leader Roger Katz, R-Augusta, an attorney, would force police to get warrants to access location information from cellphones or other GPS-enabled devices, except in emergencies such as imminent threats of bodily harm.
Labels:
legislation,
privacy,
Search
Friday, May 31, 2013
Metrish v. Lancaster: Kiss Your Defense Goodbye
Wrong Burt Lancaster |
Labels:
appeal,
retroactive,
SCOTUS
Monday, May 13, 2013
State of Maine v. Collier: No RAS, No Seizure, No Problem
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently decided State of Maine v. Matthew Collier 2013 ME 44, and vacated the trial court's order granting a motion to suppress. The court disagreed with the trial judge and found that, while there was no reasonable articulable suspicion to support a traffic stop, no RAS was needed since the defendant's interaction with police did not constitute a seizure for fourth amendment purposes.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Moncrieffe v Holder: From State Felony to Federal Misdemeanor
Matthew Kenwrick via flickr |
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Burrage v. U.S: When Does Drug Trafficking Cause Death?
.:[ Melissa ]:. via flickr |
Monday, April 29, 2013
Boyer v. Louisiana: SCOTUS Decides Not to Decide Speedy Trial Case
This sucks. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Boyer v. Louisiana to consider if delays caused by Louisiana's underfunding of indigent defense should be attributed to the prosecution for speedy trial purposes. They heard argument in the case but today dodged the issue and dismissed the Petition for Certiorari as improvidently granted. Wait, what?
Labels:
SCOTUS,
speedy trial
Monday, April 22, 2013
Missouri v. McNeely: Trouble for Implied Consent Laws?
In Missouri v. McNeely the United States Supreme Court held that police must normally get a warrant before taking a non-consensual blood sample to test a driver's blood alcohol level. The decision could have a major impact on the way that police obtain blood samples. It could also create problems for implied consent laws which are essential to drunk driving prosecution in all 50 states.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Federal Drug Trafficking Conspiracy, Dismissed Twice
Labels:
appeal,
conspiracy,
double jeopardy,
Federal Law,
Trafficking
Friday, March 29, 2013
SCOTUS Drug Dog Cases: Horror in Harris, Joy in Jardines
The United States Supreme Court has ruled on two drug dog cases in the last few weeks: Florida v. Harris and Florida v. Jardines. The Florida Supreme Court suppressed Drug Dog searches in both cases. In Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed with a particularly troubling opinion. In Jardines, they affirmed and the opinion might actually expand some fourth amendment protections.
Friday, March 22, 2013
A Criminal Sentencing Revolution? Alleyne v. United States
[Update: This case was decided in Alleyne's favor. Read my post on the opinion here].
In America, defendants facing criminal charges have the right to a jury trial. The jury hears evidence and determines the facts. The judge hears legal argument and determines the law, then instructs the jury on that law. The jury applies the law to the facts and reaches a verdict. A guilty verdict must be supported by the highest standard of proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. After the verdict, the judge imposes sentence, and it's here that certain facts, or sentencing factors, shape the outcome. The law in Federal court and in some states, allows these facts to be proved by a lower standard, and only to a judge. Proof of certain facts triggers mandatory minimum sentences. These facts are never part of the indictment, they are never presented to the jury yet they might double or triple the sentence. If that sounds wrong, it's because it might be. The issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court in Alleyne v. United States.
In America, defendants facing criminal charges have the right to a jury trial. The jury hears evidence and determines the facts. The judge hears legal argument and determines the law, then instructs the jury on that law. The jury applies the law to the facts and reaches a verdict. A guilty verdict must be supported by the highest standard of proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. After the verdict, the judge imposes sentence, and it's here that certain facts, or sentencing factors, shape the outcome. The law in Federal court and in some states, allows these facts to be proved by a lower standard, and only to a judge. Proof of certain facts triggers mandatory minimum sentences. These facts are never part of the indictment, they are never presented to the jury yet they might double or triple the sentence. If that sounds wrong, it's because it might be. The issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court in Alleyne v. United States.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Excessive Force in Maine Prisons: A Bounty of Isolated Incidents
Screen shot of the video from Portland Press Herald |
Labels:
prisoner abuse
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Maine Drug Court Process Ruled Unconstitutional
The case of Arnold Gross v. State of Maine challenges the fundamental structure of Maine's drug court system. In the February 25, 2012 decision, Justice William Anderson of the Penobscot County Superior Court found that, allowing a judge who participates in the drug court team to preside over revocation proceedings violates constitutional standards.
Labels:
Drug Court,
Drugs
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Oral Argument in the Mark Strong Zumba Prostitution Case
Labels:
appeal,
Prostitution,
Zumba case
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Fighting Crime by Publicizing, Prosecuting and Victimizing Victims: The Mark Strong Prostitution Case
Author's Note & Update 4/25/13: This post was originally published 1/31/13, several weeks before the Mark Strong trial was resolved. It has been the source of some controversy, probably because I come of sounding like a jerk who is accusing the prosecution of a grand scheme to unfairly punish the johns. That's not what they were trying to do and to the extent that the post serves to attack those people, that is not fair of me. I know the prosecutors involved and respect them as professionals who have never treated me or my clients unfairly. With the benefit of hindsight, several things are worth pointing out:
Labels:
Prostitution,
Zumba case
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)