 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Gach, Docket: Ken-04-157,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant did not file a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest pursuant to Me. R. Crim. P. 32(d) prior to the trial court's imposition of sentence, he was barred from taking a direct appeal to challenge the plea based on the asserted grounds that he was not advised of, and did not voluntarily waive, his right to counsel.
|
|||||
| State v. Ouellette, Docket: Yor-05-430,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived right to jury trial. Representation by lawyer for day did not warrant finding defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent; court could not impose upon such lawyer burden of advising clients of constitutional and other rights and procedures in criminal cases.
|
|||||
| State v. Tuplin, Docket: Cum-05-86,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court adequately instructed defendant regarding right to testify, then recessed, allowing defendant time to consider whether to testify. Defendant stated that he understood his rights, and totality of his conduct during trial implied a waiver of right to testify under Due Process Clause and election of his self-incrimination privilege.
|
|||||
| State v. Watson, Docket: Pen-03-715 & Som-03-576,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although one defendant's waiver of counsel was proper, because a second defendant did not receive any warnings or information related to the inherent risks of proceeding to trial without counsel, as required by U.S. Const. amend. VI and Me. Const. art. I, § 6, his waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent.
|
|||||
| GILE v. GARY H. REINER & REINER & BOUFFARD, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV-06-031,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, July 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| ALLSTATE INS. CO. v. ZYSK, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-05-241,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, July 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| STATE v. PADDACK, CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-05-619,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, KENNEBEC COUNTY, July 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| STATE v. ROBERTS, CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-06-369,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, KENNEBEC COUNTY, July 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
