Legal Opinion · Dissent
Jeffrey A. Cookson v. State of Maine
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided February 18, 2014No. Docket Pen-12-351Published
1DissentJabar, J.
[¶ 21] I respectfully dissent because I believe that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that Cookson failed to produce prima facie evidence of a sufficient chain of custody to permit DNA testing. Moreover, I believe that the trial court erred as a matter of law in requiring him to “eliminate all possibility of tampering with the exhibit involved.” State v. Thibodeau, 353 A.2d 595, 603 (Me.1976); see also 15 M.R.S. § 2138(4-A)(B) (2010).9
[¶ 22] In affirming the post-conviction court’s denial of Cookson’s petition to conduct DNA testing, the Court defers to the trial court’s…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- United States v. De LarosaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
- State v. ThibodeauSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1986
- State v. CressSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.