State v. Nigro, 2011 ME 81

Nigro was convicted at a jury trial of two counts of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs and a criminal forfeiture after police executed a search of Jennifer Marriner’s Rockland residence.
An informant conducted controlled purchases leading to evidence against Nigro’s involvement in cocaine distribution.
The informant identified Nigro as “Jay” from two DMV photos, aiding the investigation.
Law enforcement applied for and obtained a search warrant based on the informant’s reliability and the controlled purchases.
Nigro moved to suppress statements, the search evidence, and the informant’s identification; the court partly granted suppression of statements but denied others.
Nigro challenges voir dire regarding anti-Islamic bias, the identifications, probable cause for the warrant, and the admissibility of an owner’s manual found in Nigro’s pocket; the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there reversible error in voir dire for anti-Islamic prejudice?	Nigro asserts failure to ask about anti-Islamic bias impaired fairness.	Nigro contends biased jurors could affect verdict.	No reversible error; voir dire overall fair and impartial.
Were the informant’s identifications properly admitted given suggestive procedures?	Prosecution relied on informant’s in-court/out-of-court identifications.	Identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable.	Identifications were admissible; reliability outweighed suggestiveness.
Did Guerrette’s warrant affidavit establish probable cause to search Jennifer’s residence?	Affidavit linked informant’s past reliability to probable cause.	Affidavit lacked sufficient basis to support probable cause.	Affidavit supported probable cause for the search warrant.
Was the owner’s manual seized in violation due to untimely suppression ruling?	Manual should be suppressed as fruit of Miranda violation.	Untimely suppression; inevitable discovery or search-incident doctrine applies.	Manual admissible; suppression issue untimely and not reversibly erroneous.

State v. Lavoie, 1 A.3d 408 (Me. 2010) (background for standard of reviewing suppression/voir dire)
State v. Holland, 976 A.2d 227 (Me. 2009) (voir dire and bias assessment principles)
State v. Burdick, 782 A.2d 319 (Me. 2001) (obvious error standard for unpreserved objections)
State v. Lowry, 819 A.2d 331 (Me. 2003) (voir dire bias that is not inherently tied to charges)
Turner v. United States, 495 A.2d 1211 (Me. 1985) (prejudice standard in voir dire when not tied to charges)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1980) (reliability balancing of suggestive identifications)
Kelly v. State, 2000 ME 107 (Me. 2000) (two-step test for out-of-court identifications)
State v. Philbrick, 551 A.2d 847 (Me. 1988) (admissibility of identification evidence under reliability factors)
State v. Rabon, 2007 ME 113 (Me. 2007) (probable cause standard for warrant affidavits)
State v. Samson, 2007 ME 33 (Me. 2007) (deferential review of probable cause determinations)
State v. Nadeau, 1 A.3d 445 (Me. 2010) (inevitable discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
State v. Foy, 662 A.2d 238 (Me. 1995) (search incident to arrest doctrine)