March 14, 2016 / June 15, 2016 by mindgrub
It’s been a while since we’ve discussed what’s been happening at the First Circuit vis-à-vis- Maine, so here’s an update. Nothing too spectacular on the Maine front decision-wise, but the Court is offering a free seminar, with one session in April in Boston, and one in May in Portland, on criminal appellate practice in the First Circuit. They do something like this every five years or so. I went to the last one and it was very good. While most of the schedule is focused on issues of only criminal appellate interest, the beginning of the day has Judge Kayatta speaking, followed by another speaker on issues of generic appellate interest. It’s free and you get CLE (although not ethics, which seems odd, since David Beneman is talking about that for a half-hour). http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/news/federal-criminal-appellate-practice-seminar-0
Read more »
March 11, 2016 / June 15, 2016 by mindgrub
The Attorney General recently issued an opinion on the constitutionality of proposed legislation to adopt ranked voting, noting that the proposed law presents serious constitutional issues. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PYp5sROj_1RGNBUldIelk0T1lHVTZ1UTRrSkU3eHZtdFZJ/view?pref=2&pli=1. The problem is that the relevant provision in the Maine Constitution refers to vote by a “plurality,” which suggested that you pick the candidate with the most votes and end there.
March 10, 2016 / June 15, 2016 by mindgrub
Things are hopping on the appellate practice front in Maine. Last month the Maine SJC announced it was creating an advisory committee for the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure, and on May 20, the SJC will be giving a CLE on Appellate Practice before the Court. (Appellate Practice Before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (PRACPRO)
March 8, 2016 / June 15, 2016 by mindgrub
On Feb. 29, the Supreme Court heard argument in Williams v. Pennsylvania, a case presenting two issues: (1) should one of the judges hearing the capital case appeal have recused himself due to involvement at the trial level; and, if so (2) what’s the proper remedy, if any, if the majority vote on appeal would remain a majority even excluding that judge’s vote. We’re looking at Q #2 today.
