Connection lost
Server error
MAINE v. MOULTON Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: After indictment, police used a co-defendant informant to secretly record the defendant discussing trial strategy for pending charges. The Court held this violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by “knowingly circumventing” it, even if police were also legitimately investigating new crimes. The statements were suppressed.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies that the Sixth Amendment is violated when the state knowingly exploits a post-indictment opportunity to obtain incriminating statements, regardless of who initiated contact or the existence of a separate, legitimate investigation. The focus is on circumvention, not just intentional creation of the opportunity.
MAINE v. MOULTON Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Perley Moulton and his co-defendant, Gary Colson, were indicted for theft, retained counsel, and were released on bail. Subsequently, Colson decided to cooperate with the police, informing them that Moulton had suggested killing a state witness. The police arranged for Colson to record his telephone calls with Moulton. From these calls, police learned that Moulton and Colson planned to meet specifically to discuss the pending charges and develop a defense strategy for their upcoming trial. Knowing the express purpose of the meeting, police equipped Colson with a body wire transmitter. The state contended its purpose was to ensure Colson’s safety and investigate the witness tampering plot. During the lengthy meeting, which focused on trial strategy and creating false alibis, Colson repeatedly feigned memory loss. This technique prompted Moulton to recount details of the crimes for which he was already indicted. These incriminating statements were later introduced at Moulton’s trial on the pending charges.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the state violate an indicted defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by using an undercover informant to record conversations in which the defendant makes incriminating statements regarding pending charges, when the state knows the meeting is to discuss trial strategy but also has a legitimate purpose of investigating separate, uncharged crimes?
Yes. The state violated Moulton’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The police Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the state violate an indicted defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by using an undercover informant to record conversations in which the defendant makes incriminating statements regarding pending charges, when the state knows the meeting is to discuss trial strategy but also has a legitimate purpose of investigating separate, uncharged crimes?
Conclusion
Maine v. Moulton establishes that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the state from Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
Legal Rule
The Sixth Amendment is violated when the state obtains incriminating statements by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cul
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis began with the established principle that the Sixth Amendment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserun
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when the state