Should Anyone Care that Sexual Assault is “Out of Character” for Biden?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb considers what people mean when they say that a sexual assault allegation seems “out of character” for a particular person and explains why that reasoning is logically flawed. Focusing on differences between how people behave publicly and privately, Colb argues that the lack of an observed pattern of sexual misconduct is not evidence that a person did not engage in sexual misconduct on a specific occasion.

Read More

20 Thames Street LLC v. Ocean State Job Lot of Maine 2017, LLC

Citation: 2020 ME 55

Opinion Date: May 5, 2020

Judge: Connors

Areas of Law: Contracts, Landlord - Tenant

In this commercial forcible entry and detainer action brought by 20 Thames Street LLC and 122 PTIP LLC (collectively, 20 Thames) the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award lease-based attorney fees upon finding for Ocean State Job Lot of Maine 2017, LLC, holding that the superior court did not err. Ocean State rented a commercial retail space from 20 Thames. 20 Thames later filed its compliant for forcible entry and detainer, alleging that Ocean State breached the terms of its lease. The business and consumer docket found in favor of Ocean State. The court awarded Ocean State costs and $206,076 in attorney fees based on a provision in the lease. The superior route affirmed the judgment for Ocean State but vacated the attorney fee award, concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to award lease-based attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 6017 did not provide authority for the district court to award lease-based attorney fees.

State v. Mullen

Citation: 2020 ME 56

Opinion Date: May 5, 2020

Judge: Connors

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for reckless conduct and aggravated criminal mischief, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by offering Defendant a continuance of the trial in lieu of excluding his medical records. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to suppress his personal medical records as a sanction for the State's late seizure of the records. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed that the State's conduct undermined the purpose of Maine Rule of Unified Criminal Procedure 18(b) but that the court's offer of a continuance in lieu of the exclusion of the evidence constituted an appropriate response to the State's conduct.