The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the murder conviction of Kailie Brackett and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial court made a critical error in admitting expert testimony about footprint evidence that violated Maine's evidence rules.
Brackett was convicted of murder in connection with the brutal April 2022 stabbing death of Kimberly Neptune, who was found dead in her apartment by her brother, Samuel Neptune Jr. The victim had been stabbed 484 times.
In a decision issued Feb. 5, 2026, the state's highest court ruled that the Washington County trial court erred when it admitted testimony under Maine Rule of Evidence 702 regarding the identity of a partial, sock-clad footprint found at the crime scene. Justice Connors, writing for the court, noted that this evidentiary error was further compounded by how prosecutors characterized the footprint testimony during closing and rebuttal arguments.
The case stemmed from the evening of April 21, 2022, when Neptune was discovered dead in her apartment. The gruesome nature of the crime, with the victim suffering 484 stab wounds, shocked the community. Approximately one month after the discovery, the state indicted both Brackett and co-defendant Donnell Dana Jr. with intentional, knowing, or depraved indifference murder under Maine statute 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A)-(B).
The trial took place over nearly two weeks, from Dec. 8-20, 2023, in Washington County Superior Court before Judge R. Murray. During the proceedings, the state presented testimony from 21 witnesses, including the victim's brother who discovered the body, various local and state law enforcement officers, and an investigator from the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
Crucial to the state's case was expert testimony from Dr. Michael Nirenberg, a podiatrist, regarding the footprint evidence found at the scene. The state also called the deputy chief medical examiner, Kim's downstairs neighbor Melissa Martin, a resident from Brackett's neighborhood, forensic experts from the State Police crime laboratory including a forensic chemist and DNA analyst, and Hailie Levesque, who was Kim's cousin.
The defense countered with testimony from Alicia McCarthy, PhD, who provided expert testimony challenging Nirenberg's footprint analysis. Brackett raised multiple challenges to her conviction on appeal, including arguments about the sufficiency of evidence, the admission of expert testimony over her objections, and alleged prosecutorial error.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court panel that decided the case included Chief Justice Stanfill and Justices Mead, Connors, Lawrence, Douglas, and Lipez. The case was argued before the court on Sept. 10, 2025.
Maine Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony and requires that such testimony be based on sufficient facts or data, be the product of reliable principles and methods, and that the expert has reliably applied those principles and methods to the facts of the case. The rule is designed to ensure that expert testimony meets scientific reliability standards before being presented to a jury.
Footprint analysis has become an increasingly scrutinized area of forensic science, with courts across the country examining whether such evidence meets modern scientific standards for admissibility. The reliability of footprint comparison evidence has been questioned in various jurisdictions, particularly when dealing with partial prints or impressions made through socks or other materials.
The court's decision to vacate the conviction demonstrates the critical importance of proper evidentiary procedures in criminal trials, particularly in murder cases where the stakes are highest. When courts admit evidence that doesn't meet established legal standards, it can undermine the integrity of the entire proceeding and lead to wrongful convictions.
The ruling means that Brackett will face a new trial, where prosecutors will need to present their case again but without the problematic footprint testimony that led to the reversal. The state will have the opportunity to pursue the murder charges again, but must do so within the proper evidentiary framework established by Maine's rules of evidence.
This case highlights ongoing challenges in forensic science and the legal system's efforts to ensure that expert testimony meets appropriate scientific standards. The decision reflects the appellate courts' role in safeguarding defendants' rights to fair trials by ensuring that only properly admitted evidence is considered by juries.
The remand for a new trial means the case will return to the trial court level, where both the prosecution and defense will have another opportunity to present their cases to a new jury, this time without the footprint evidence that the Supreme Judicial Court found was improperly admitted.