Case Description
In connection with a decision of the Maine Board of Environmental Protection about cleanup of a hazardous waste site, the defendant alleged that the Board erred in not allowing evidence of “the allegedly conflicting roles of the assistant attorney generals who both prosecuted the case and have advised the Board in the past.” The court held that it was convinced, “because of the unique nature of the Attorney General’s office in pursuing the public interest, assistant attorney generals do not violate ethical rules or violate constitutional due process requirements by serving as prosecutor and advisor to the same agency in two separate proceedings.”
