Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
DeWolfe v. Richmondgreen2 sentences2018It did not matter that the custody might continue "only for a brief time" before the defendant had a right to a hearing, with counsel, before a judge, id. at 463-64 , 76 A.3d 1019 (quoting DeWolfe v. Richmond , 434 Md. 403 , 429, 76 A.3d 962 (2012) (" DeWolfe I ") ); it was enough that the proceeding had a potential effect on a defendant's incarceration, DeWolfe II , 434 Md. at 464, 76 A.3d 1019 . 2018It did not matter that the custody might continue "only for a brief time" before the defendant had a right to a hearing, with counsel, before a judge, id. at 463-64 , 76 A.3d 1019 (quoting DeWolfe v. Richmond , 434 Md. 403 , 429, 76 A.3d 962 (2012) (" DeWolfe I ") ); it was enough that the proceeding had a potential effect on a defendant's incarceration, DeWolfe II , 434 Md. at 464, 76 A.3d 1019 . | 2 | 2 |
Fenner v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In Fenner , the defendant appeared before the District Court for a bail review hearing after his arrest and initial appearance before the District Court Commissioner. 381 Md. at 6 , 846 A.2d at 1023 . 2012In Fenner , the defendant appeared before the District Court for a bail review hearing after his arrest and initial appearance before the District Court Commissioner. 381 Md. at 6 , 846 A.2d at 1023 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Conovergreen2 sentences2009See Fenner [v. State ], 381 Md. [1,] at 10[, 846 A.2d 1020, 1025 (2004), (holding that the petitioner had not been subjected to custodial interrogation during a bail review hearing when the presiding judge asked him, “Is there anything you would like to tell me about yourself?”)]; State v. Conover, 312 Md. [33,] at 45[, 537 A.2d 1167, 1172 (1988)]; see also Conboy v. State, 155 Md.App. 353, 373 , 843 A.2d 216 [, 228] (2004) (holding that a police officer’s comment, remarking that a key discovered in defendant’s pocket fit the ignition of a car involved in an accident, “was merely an observatio 2008Similarly, the Court held in State v. Conover, 312 Md. 33, 44-45 , 537 A.2d 1167 (1988), that the officer’s reading to the appellant a statement of charges and application upon which the statement of charges was based was not interrogation within the meaning of Miranda . | 1 | 2 |
Prioleau v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Fenner [v. State ], 381 Md. [1,] at 10[, 846 A.2d 1020, 1025 (2004), (holding that the petitioner had not been subjected to custodial interrogation during a bail review hearing when the presiding judge asked him, “Is there anything you would like to tell me about yourself?”)]; State v. Conover, 312 Md. [33,] at 45[, 537 A.2d 1167, 1172 (1988)]; see also Conboy v. State, 155 Md.App. 353, 373 , 843 A.2d 216 [, 228] (2004) (holding that a police officer’s comment, remarking that a key discovered in defendant’s pocket fit the ignition of a car involved in an accident, “was merely an observatio 2009See Fenner [v. State ], 381 Md. [1,] at 10[, 846 A.2d 1020, 1025 (2004), (holding that the petitioner had not been subjected to custodial interrogation during a bail review hearing when the presiding judge asked him, “Is there anything you would like to tell me about yourself?”)]; State v. Conover, 312 Md. [33,] at 45[, 537 A.2d 1167, 1172 (1988)]; see also Conboy v. State, 155 Md.App. 353, 373 , 843 A.2d 216 [, 228] (2004) (holding that a police officer’s comment, remarking that a key discovered in defendant’s pocket fit the ignition of a car involved in an accident, “was merely an observatio | 1 | 1 |
Conboy v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Fenner [v. State ], 381 Md. [1,] at 10[, 846 A.2d 1020, 1025 (2004), (holding that the petitioner had not been subjected to custodial interrogation during a bail review hearing when the presiding judge asked him, “Is there anything you would like to tell me about yourself?”)]; State v. Conover, 312 Md. [33,] at 45[, 537 A.2d 1167, 1172 (1988)]; see also Conboy v. State, 155 Md.App. 353, 373 , 843 A.2d 216 [, 228] (2004) (holding that a police officer’s comment, remarking that a key discovered in defendant’s pocket fit the ignition of a car involved in an accident, “was merely an observatio 2009See Fenner [v. State ], 381 Md. [1,] at 10[, 846 A.2d 1020, 1025 (2004), (holding that the petitioner had not been subjected to custodial interrogation during a bail review hearing when the presiding judge asked him, “Is there anything you would like to tell me about yourself?”)]; State v. Conover, 312 Md. [33,] at 45[, 537 A.2d 1167, 1172 (1988)]; see also Conboy v. State, 155 Md.App. 353, 373 , 843 A.2d 216 [, 228] (2004) (holding that a police officer’s comment, remarking that a key discovered in defendant’s pocket fit the ignition of a car involved in an accident, “was merely an observatio | 1 | 1 |
McNeil v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2008In McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 182 , 111 S.Ct. 2204 , 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991), the Supreme Court held that an accused’s invocation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a bail review hearing did not constitute the invocation of the accused’s Miranda right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment. 2008In McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 182 , 111 S.Ct. 2204 , 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991), the Supreme Court held that an accused’s invocation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a bail review hearing did not constitute the invocation of the accused’s Miranda right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DeWolfe v. Richmond
green
2 sentences2018The Court of Appeals held *154 that defendants have a right to counsel at the initial appearance because "the defendant is in custody and, unless released on his or her personal recognizance or on bail, the defendant will remain incarcerated until a bail review hearing before a judge." Id. at 464 , 76 A.3d 1019 . 2018The Court of Appeals held *154 that defendants have a right to counsel at the initial appearance because "the defendant is in custody and, unless released on his or her personal recognizance or on bail, the defendant will remain incarcerated until a bail review hearing before a judge." Id. at 464 , 76 A.3d 1019 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences2007The District Court’s sole role in that case was to conduct a bail review hearing. “[Bjecause Johnson did not appear in District Court without counsel and demand a jury trial, he was required to receive his subsection (a) advisements from a circuit court judge.” Johnson, 355 Md. at 457 , 735 A.2d at 1023 . 2007The District Court’s sole role in that case was to conduct a bail review hearing. “[Bjecause Johnson did not appear in District Court without counsel and demand a jury trial, he was required to receive his subsection (a) advisements from a circuit court judge.” Johnson, 355 Md. at 457 , 735 A.2d at 1023 . | 2 | 2003–2007 |
Arnett v. State
green
2 sentences2009In Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165 , 122 S.W.3d 484 (2003), the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a sexual child abuse conviction obtained in part on evidence that, while the arresting officer was placing handcuffs on the defendant, (1) the arresting officer asked, “what’s up?” and (2) the defendant stated that he had sexually abused his daughter and that he needed help. 2009In Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165 , 122 S.W.3d 484 (2003), the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a sexual child abuse conviction obtained in part on evidence that, while the arresting officer was placing handcuffs on the defendant, (1) the arresting officer asked, “what’s up?” and (2) the defendant stated that he had sexually abused his daughter and that he needed help. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Evans v. State
green
2 sentences2003First, relying on Johnson v. State, 355 Md. 420, 453 , 735 A.2d 1003 (1999), and Evans v. State, 84 Md.App. 573, 580 , 581 A.2d 435 (1990), appellant argues that an advice of rights from a district court judge during a bail review hearing does not satisfy the rule. 2003First, relying on Johnson v. State, 355 Md. 420, 453 , 735 A.2d 1003 (1999), and Evans v. State, 84 Md.App. 573, 580 , 581 A.2d 435 (1990), appellant argues that an advice of rights from a district court judge during a bail review hearing does not satisfy the rule. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Schmitt v. State
neutral
2 sentences1988Cf. Schmitt v. State, 46 Md.App. 389, 397 , 416 A.2d 296 (1980) (continued incarceration prevented defendant from resolving problem with a detainer issued by another jurisdiction). 1988Cf. Schmitt v. State, 46 Md.App. 389, 397 , 416 A.2d 296 (1980) (continued incarceration prevented defendant from resolving problem with a detainer issued by another jurisdiction). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.