Good news/Bad news - Result of my trial by jury

Well, there was a verdict by the jury on Tuesday February 24, in my case/s in Lincoln County. It makes my head spin all the stuff I was accused of! Thirteen of fourteen counts were dismissed. That's a good indication that this it is a malicious prosecution. 

I'm appealing the jury decision!!!!! Twelve of them found me guilty on stalking. The Counterman v. Colorado U.S. Supreme court case wasn't mentioned. I discovered that case on my own one night while listening to audio of legislative hearings. There was a discussion about the 2024 case State of Maine v Labbe. 

Anyway, my lawyer spent days preparing a brief. I still haven't even read it entirely, yet the jury made a decision in about an hour. I was expecting my lawyer to spend some time explaining the decisions in those cases, but that did not happen. It seems much of it got condensed; and the information flowed (or didn't) to the jury through the judge's jury instructions! 

There was no mention of the police misconduct and violations of my rights by Lewiston police officers during the 5 arrests. I sure hope the sentencing judge considers that I've suffered much distress and damages during that time from the beginning of March until November when I was finally appointed an attorney. 

"One of the reasons I could use for the appeal," I mentioned in a group that I meet with regularly "is that my lawyer was biting his pen during trial...and that could have prejudiced the jury." Someone responded "There has to be something more." I added "...biting it really hard!"

There is much more though, and I promise I'll post updates here.  

At Oyez there are audio recordings of the arguments in the 2023 United States Supreme court case Counterman v Colorado and documents from the case.  

Jury trial set for Feb 24 in Lincoln County - bail $$ returned

My attorney tells me that Judge Walker amended the counts/charges in my case. What the hell? He will contest it. 

He did ask the court to return my bail money, minus the $60 bail commissioner's fee, times two... I received it on Saturday and I'm heading to the bank now.

Thompson v Clark - 2022 Supreme Court of U.S. - malicious prosecution case

On April 4, 2022 the United States Supreme Court made a decision that gives me confidence that I could prevail in a case of malicious prosecution. 

Immediately following a decision, the Supreme Court puts out a slip opinion before final publication of the case. Here is the slip opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case where I found this: 

EMTs took the baby to the hospital where medical professionals examined her and found no signs of abuse. Meanwhile, Thompson was arrested and charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest. He was detained for two days before being released. The charges against Thompson were dismissed before trial without any explanation by the prosecutor or judge. 

At the website for the The Council of State Governments regarding Thompson v Clark, I found more information about the case. Thompson was arrested in 2014 after being accused of sexually assaulting his newborn baby in New York; after examination of the baby it should have been obvious that he was not guilty. 

He resisted arrest; as with my case, in Aroostook County which was dismissed, and the pending case in Lincoln County which I go to trial for on Feb 24-26, it wasn't the original charges that landed him in jail, but his actions in what should be a right to resist arrest in relation to the bogus charges.

It wasn't until 7 years later in 2021 that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) got the case after the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim was affirmed by the Second Circuit court. 

Before trial the prosecutor moved to dismiss the charges and the trial judge agreed to do so without explaining why. Thompson then sued the officers who arrested him for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment. Per Second Circuit precedent a malicious prosecution case can only be brought if the prosecution ends not merely without a conviction but with some affirmative indication of innocence.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that you do not need affirmation of innocence for a malicious prosecution case; you only need to show that the case ended without a conviction of guilt. 

After my arrest on July 10, 2024 without a warrant or probable cause, I was  incarcerated for four nights when I failed to appear to pick a jury; Judge Linthicum had denied me an attorney, in violation of my 6th amendment right to counsel and my 7th amendment right to due process. Upon my release, the charges were dismissed. So, I was punished for failing to appear to pick a jury for a trial that was never justified. 

You can go to my July 11, 2025 post to view the dismissal of the case by District Attorney Todd Collins, and the reason. 

Maine Legislature: discussion on Counterman v Colorado U.S Supreme Court (2023)

I found public testimony regarding LD 648, being heard by the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. It allows for parole for a specific population: young adults. You can view the video recording of the hearing for An Act to Expand the Supervised Community Confinement Program. Maine abolished parole in 1976. Studies have shown that until about the age of 26 certain parts of the brain that control impulses aren't fully developed. Many people, including victims of domestic violence, testified in support of LD 648, and only a few argued against it.

After most people had left, the Committee discussed other bills that are more difficult to understand. A woman lawyer who represented the state of Maine in a man's appeal of a conviction for stalking and violation of protection order spoke about the appeal of State v. Jacob Labbe. A 2023 United States Supreme Court case was mentioned. I looked it up, as it could help me. It's regarding true threats, intent (mens rea), and free speech. From page 2 of 57 in Counterman v Colorado, :

First Amendment may still demand a subjective mental-state requirement shielding some true threats from liability. That is because bans on speech have the potential to chill, or deter, speech outside their boundaries. An important tool to prevent that outcome is to condition liability on the State’s showing of a culpable mental state.

Lewiston's Public Safety Committee - Second Chance

I'm interested in knowing more about the Public Safety Committee that's being formed...specifically, how do you get chosen to be on the Committee? I tried to find out 2.5 years ago when the ad hoc Committee was formed, but each time I called city hall I could not get an answer to that, or to when and where the meetings were being held. 

Here's the agenda for the Tuesday 2-03-26 city council meeting. There will be discussion regarding formation of the new and improved Public Safety Committee...item 14. Council meetings are held every 1st and 3rd Tuesday evening at city hall @ 7 pm. An Economic Development Committee is also being formed. 

Regarding who will be on the Public Safety Committee, the mayor would just love to keep most of the former members on who want to stay on. Many of them work for the police department, or in the justice system. Some, like the mayor, are employees of Lewiston city government; one was a council member. Very few were ordinary residents of Lewiston. 

The entire council agreed during one meeting which I attended, that the former Committee accomplished virtually nothing; the mayor, however, disagreed. How much could have been accomplished by a committee which met only twice in 2.5 years? 

The ad hoc Committee was formed just prior to the mass shooting in October of 2023; and one reason was that the librarian was attacked by a homeless person. The fact that it was set up as ad hoc meant that there wasn't any reports required to be made to the council. I'm glad that's changing, but public participation will still be needed in order to bring about changes. If I attend on Tuesday, I'll make my public comment, and then leave and watch the rest of it from home, joining others in the chat room of the City's Youtube channel. 

The governor's duty to the people - The Constitution of Maine

Governor Mills has more power - or responsibility rather - to intervene in law enforcement matters than she lets on. According to the Constitution of Maine, which is 50 pages, you'll find the following on page 24:

Section 12. Shall enforce the laws. The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

I wrote to Paul LePage when he was governor and tried to get his help regarding injustices in the justice system. I've written to governors LePage, Baldacci, and Mills... and never got assistance from any of them. 

Way back while reading about the People's Veto, which is part of the Constitution of Maine, I read about the petition process. It was difficult to understand. Nothing has changed; on page 17, Section 17, 1. Proceedings for people's veto, is still a hell of a run on sentence...12 lines long!