THERIAULT v. STATE OF MAINE, 1:16-cv-00576

Background

Mark Theriault was convicted in Maine state court (Feb. 2011) of unlawful sexual contact with a child under 12 and sentenced to 16 years (8 years to serve) and probation.
Theriault raised multiple ineffective-assistance claims against his trial lawyer, Allen Hanson, including failure to impeach the victim (PlayStation and prior statements), failure to investigate (private investigator), failure to obtain agency records, and poor communication/preparation.
The state trial court denied post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing; the Maine Law Court found certain trial-counsel rule violations and disciplined Hanson but generally rejected Theriault’s Strickland claims, remanding only two issues (PlayStation and Spurwink statements) for further consideration.
On remand the trial court applied Strickland and again denied relief on the PlayStation and Spurwink issues; the Maine Law Court denied further review, concluding Theriault had received effective assistance overall.
Theriault filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal. The district court reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal, concluding the state courts’ adjudications were reasonable under § 2254(d).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel failed to impeach victim about PlayStation testimony	Theriault: Hanson knew Theriault did not own a PlayStation and should have impeached the victim, which would have undermined credibility	State: Counsel reasonably limited cross-examination (juror reaction, already elicited impeachment) and tactical choice was within professional judgment; no prejudice shown	Denied — state courts reasonably applied Strickland; counsel’s tactics permissible and no reasonable probability of different outcome
Counsel failed to impeach based on Spurwink inconsistent statements	Theriault: Prior statements to Spurwink evaluator contradicted trial testimony and should have been used to impeach	State: Introducing parts of Spurwink interview risked eliciting inculpatory portions on redirect; other impeachment already presented; no prejudice shown	Denied — state courts reasonably found strategic restraint and absence of prejudice
Counsel failed to hire/use a court-funded private investigator	Theriault: Investigator could have pursued alternative suspects (victim’s father/brother) and uncovered exculpatory evidence	State: Theriault offered no evidence what investigator would have found; counsel reasonably declined because it could open damaging admissions in police report	Denied — no deficient performance shown and speculation insufficient to prove prejudice
Significance of attorney disciplinary findings	Theriault: Discipline by the Maine Law Court shows counsel’s performance was per se ineffective	State: Disciplinary standards differ from Sixth Amendment Strickland standard; discipline alone does not establish constitutional ineffectiveness	Denied — discipline is relevant but not dispositive; Strickland performance and prejudice required and were not shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (federal habeas relief requires state decision to be objectively unreasonable)
Brumfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269 (applies § 2254(d)(2) to state-court finding that “no evidence” supported claim)
Winfield v. O’Brien, 775 F.3d 1 (discusses § 2254(d)(1) layering of standards)
Hurtado v. Tucker, 245 F.3d 7 (First Circuit on habeas review standards)
Teti v. Bender, 507 F.3d 50 (reasonableness of state-court outcomes may be upheld even if debatable)
Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (final state-court adjudication controls for § 2254 review)