It was while watching a video of public testimony on bills in the Criminal Justice Committee at the capital in April of 2025, that I first learned about the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court case Counterman v. Colorado; members were discussing if changes to Maine statutes needed to be made regarding mens rea (intent) in criminal cases. The discussion regarding it begins around 5:15:00.
Counterman changed the standard from "recklessly" to "intentionally or knowingly" believe an individual's behavior would cause harm. The changes should have made my defense against the stalking charge even stronger.
Katherine MacCrae, an Assistant District Attorney in Androscoggin County, who had argued for the state in the appeal of the decision in State of Maine v. Jacob Labbe, was explaining that slight changes should be made to Maine statutes to reflect the decision in Counterman. Labbe lost his appeal.
However, there were two other cases mentioned in the legislative meeting. The Counterman decision was used by Hasahn Carter to beat two of the charges against him during a 4 day jury trial. I recognized the name of the lawyer representing him: Michelle King.
The first time I spoke with Michelle, she wouldn't take Shane's Post Conviction Review (PCR), but when I called her again six months later she agree to take it. The state of Maine doesn't appoint you an attorney for a PCR, but if you find one that is on the roster of the MCPDS, they can represent you and the MCPDS should pay. However, Shane later dropped the PCR, afraid that the judge who sentenced him, Nelson in Aroostook County, would add time to his sentence...to send a message!
There's evidence of self-defense in his case which was never investigated. Shane's lawyer, Verne Paradie, had me blocked during the Zoom hearing where Judge Stephen Nelson was sentencing Shane after he agreed to a plea bargain without seeing that evidence! A detective who Paradie hired, Hank Dusenbery, failed to get in touch with people in the Saint John Valley to confirm the text message which proved how dangerous the man who Shane had an altercation with was. I received the text after Shane was arrested. Dusenbery is a former police chief.
So much can go wrong with a case, and it's difficult to correct errors once convicted or once you agree to a plea bargain. Judge Nelson presided over a malicious prosecution of me after I was arrested for disorderly conduct after being threatened by a tenant. I had the proof in the form of a text message. The man was never even given a warning by Maine State Corporal Ted Martin who arrested me without a warrant over a simple argument about it with my husband. I was denied an attorney, and Nelson put out a bench warrant for my arrest after I didn't appear for a hearing to pick a jury! Being denied an attorney, and expected to pick a jury for a sham trial should be enough reason not to appear...but honestly I simply forgot. I was away from home and hadn't entered the date into my calendar. I spent 4 nights in jail for the failure to appear, and then District Attorney Todd Collins dismissed the charge against me.
Besides the Labbe case, there were two more cases mentioned in the video; I replayed it and wrote the names of the defendants. In State of Maine v. Hasahn Carter at paragraph 20:
In November 2023, Carter filed a motion to dismiss Countys 1 and 8 of the indictment. The trial court (Hjelm, A.R.J.) held a hearing on the motion at which the State agreed to dismiss County 8 (terrorizing) based on potential constitutional issues following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count 1 (Class A robbery) over the State's objection because it concluded that Count 1 did not include an allegation of the requisite state of mind.
Two counts were dismissed because of the Counterman case. Carter was convicted of a slew of other charges in connection with a violent home invasion and was sentenced to 14 years, and 4 years probation. In the third case mentioned, State of Maine v. Timothy McFarland:
On May 2, 2024 defendant filed the instant motion, arguing that the charge arises under a statute that is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
...when section 651 was enacted it was constitutional based on the then-current understanding of the First Amendment. To the extent that the statute does not contain a culpable state of mind as an element, it has become unconstitutional pursuant to Counterman." (Emphasis in original.)
