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.
8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2017“The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees an accused the right to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.” Coleman v. State, 434 Md. 320, 333 , 75 A.3d 916, 923 (2013). “[T]he procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 444–45, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L. 2017“The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees an accused the right to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.” Coleman v. State, 434 Md. 320, 333 , 75 A.3d 916, 923 (2013). “[T]he procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-07 (1966), commonly referred to as the Miranda warnings, provide practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination.” Id. at 333, 75 A.3d at 924 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Coleman v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees an accused the right to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.” Coleman v. State, 434 Md. 320, 333 , 75 A.3d 916, 923 (2013). “[T]he procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 444–45, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L. 2017“The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees an accused the right to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.” Coleman v. State, 434 Md. 320, 333 , 75 A.3d 916, 923 (2013). “[T]he procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-07 (1966), commonly referred to as the Miranda warnings, provide practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination.” Id. at 333, 75 A.3d at 924 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 3 |
Boulden v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Coleman v. State, 434 Md. 320, 333 , 75 A.3d 916, 923 (2013) ("The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees an accused the right to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.” (Citation omitted)); Boulden v. State, 414 Md. 284, 294 , 995 A.2d 268, 273 (2010) ("The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Citation omitted)). 14 . 2016See Coleman v. State, 434 Md. 320, 333 , 75 A.3d 916, 923 (2013) ("The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees an accused the right to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.” (Citation omitted)); Boulden v. State, 414 Md. 284, 294 , 995 A.2d 268, 273 (2010) ("The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Citation omitted)). 14 . | 2 | 2 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2017“The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees an accused the right to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.” Coleman v. State, 434 Md. 320, 333 , 75 A.3d 916, 923 (2013). “[T]he procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-07 (1966), commonly referred to as the Miranda warnings, provide practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination.” Id. at 333, 75 A.3d at 924 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 2017“The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees an accused the right to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.” Coleman v. State, 434 Md. 320, 333 , 75 A.3d 916, 923 (2013). “[T]he procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-07 (1966), commonly referred to as the Miranda warnings, provide practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination.” Id. at 333, 75 A.3d at 924 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Accordingly, in Johnson, id. at 545, 539-40, 336 A.2d at 118, 115 , this Court vacated a sentence and remanded for resentencing where, during sentencing, a trial court stated: [I]f you had come in here with a plea of guilty and been honest about (it) and said, [“]Of course I did it,[”] which you did, you would probably have gotten a modest sentence, concurrent with the one [that you are serving] in the District of Columbia, and you would have gotten out of it. | 1 | 1 |
Ellison v. Stategreen1 sentence1989See Ellison, supra, 310 Md. *14 at 258-59, 528 A.2d at 1277-78 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vandegrift v. State
green
2 sentences2004After condemning that practice, the Court articulated five factors relevant to whether, in a given case, the practice caused prejudicial error: 1. that the witness appears to have been so closely implicated in the defendant’s alleged criminal activities that the invocation by the witness of a claim of privilege when asked a relevant question tending to establish the offense charged will create an inference of the witness’ complicity, which will, in turn, prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury; 2. that the prosecutor knew in advance or had reason to anticipate that the witness would cl 2004After condemning that practice, the Court articulated five factors relevant to whether, in a given case, the practice caused prejudicial error: 1. that the witness appears to have been so closely implicated in the defendant’s alleged criminal activities that the invocation by the witness of a claim of privilege when asked a relevant question tending to establish the offense charged will create an inference of the witness’ complicity, which will, in turn, prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury; 2. that the prosecutor knew in advance or had reason to anticipate that the witness would cl | 4 | 1989–2016 |
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.