Source: https://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/documents/00me55re.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:52:38+00:00

Document:
Majority:	WATHEN, C.J., and RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.
Dissent:	SAUFLEY, J, and CLIFFORD, J.
and not on any improper police activity.   Finding no error, we affirm.
or incorrect conduct upon the part of the investigating officers.
defendant was free from "compulsion of whatever nature."
Id. at 1123-24 (footnote omitted).
overrule State v. Caouette in light of U.S. Supreme Court case, Colorado v.
justice. . . . '" Id.
v. Caouette, 446 A.2d at 1122 (citing State v. Collins, 297 A.2d 620 (Me.
appropriate resolution of the values they find at stake.'" Id. (quoting Lego v.
in order to better secure the guarantee of freedom from self-incrimination.
requirement of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
by this Court -- as a matter of Maine law.
"The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination . . .
public policy of the State of Maine.
in the Union by a standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Id. at 627.  We find this rationale still represents Maine's public policy.
in State v. Eastman, 1997 ME 39, 691 A.2d 179, are consistent with State v.
Caouette, a more protective standard is warranted under Maine law.
Go to attorneys and footnotes.

References: v. 
 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.