Legal Opinion · Dissent

Irish v. Gimbel

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 6, 2000Published

1Dissent

DANA, J.,

with whom CALKINS, J., joins, dissenting.

[¶ 10] I respectfully dissent. Despite our amplification regarding the extent of permissible neutral comment by the trial court in Irish I, the effective silencing of comment by counsel on a piece of evidence as weighty as the findings of a panel of experts impermissibly encroaches on a party’s right to a trial by jury recognized in the Maine Constitution. See Me. Const. art. I, § 20 (1819, amended 1988). Our recommended instructions in Irish I failed to cure this infirmity.

[¶ 11] As we noted in Irish I, the Maine Constitution guarantees a…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Alford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Everett v. GoldmanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1978
  4. Eastin v. BroomfieldArizona Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Nellie Woods, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John N. Woods v. Holy Cross HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API