State of Maine v. Wade R. Hoover, 121 A.3d 1281

In Oct. 2012 investigators (HSI and Maine State Police) executed a consensual search that found child pornography and videos depicting Hoover sexually assaulting children; state arrested him on a possession charge.
Federal authorities later obtained a detainer and continued joint investigations with state police; state dismissed its possession charge on Dec. 7, 2012, and Hoover was turned over to federal custody.
In Feb. 2013 Hoover pleaded guilty in federal court to sexual exploitation (production) and possession of child pornography and was sentenced in July 2013 to consecutive terms totaling 480 months, a sentence that expressly considered his sexual assaults as aggravating conduct.
In March–May 2013 state grand juries (Somerset and Kennebec counties) indicted Hoover on 13 counts of gross sexual assault; Hoover pleaded not guilty in state court.
Hoover moved to dismiss the state indictments on double jeopardy grounds, arguing (1) he was already punished by the federal sentence for the same conduct and (2) the state prosecution was a sham/tool of federal authorities (Bartkus exception).
Trial court denied the motion; Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the dual-sovereignty doctrine permits successive prosecutions and no evidence supported application of the Bartkus exception.

Issue	Hoover's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether successive federal and state punishments here constitute impermissible duplicative punishment	Hoover: Federal sentence already punished the same sexually assaultive conduct; using that conduct to increase federal sentence means state prosecution would double punish	State: Federal and state offenses have different elements; use of conduct in federal sentencing does not equate to punishment barring separate sovereign prosecutions	Held: Dual-sovereignty permits state prosecution; any duplicative punishment across sovereigns is permissible
Whether the Bartkus exception (sham/tool prosecution) defeats dual-sovereignty	Hoover: State acted as a tool of federal prosecutors (coordination, dismissal to allow federal prosecution, joint investigations)	State: Coordination and cooperation do not prove domination or manipulation; state acted to protect its own interests and public safety	Held: No evidence of domination/manipulation; Bartkus exception does not apply; prosecution allowed

Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (use of related conduct to enhance sentence ordinarily is not punishment for that conduct for double jeopardy purposes)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same-elements test for determining whether offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (discussing application of Blockburger test)
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959) (exception to dual-sovereignty when state prosecution is a sham/tool of federal authorities)
United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922) (separate sovereigns may punish the same act without violating double jeopardy)
McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986) (warning that excessive reliance on related conduct in sentencing can improperly subsume the substantive offense)
United States v. Guzman, 85 F.3d 823 (1st Cir. 1996) (cooperative law enforcement between sovereigns does not alone trigger the Bartkus exception)