6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Midgett v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Midgett v. State, 223 Md. 282, 289 , 164 A.2d 526, 529 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 853 , 81 S.Ct. 819 , 5 L.Ed.2d 817 (1961). 2006Midgett v. State, 223 Md. 282, 289 , 164 A.2d 526, 529 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 853 , 81 S.Ct. 819 , 5 L.Ed.2d 817 (1961). | 2 | 2 |
Royal v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Describing the nature of the *211 privilege under the Fifth Amendment, we noted that “the privilege is not a prohibition of inquiry, but is an option of refusal.” Royal v. State, 236 Md. 443, 447 , 204 A.2d 500, 502 (1964). 2006Describing the nature of the *211 privilege under the Fifth Amendment, we noted that “the privilege is not a prohibition of inquiry, but is an option of refusal.” Royal v. State, 236 Md. 443, 447 , 204 A.2d 500, 502 (1964). | 1 | 2 |
Temple v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2006Ultimately, the Court observed that for the trial court to determine that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply, it must be “ ‘perfectly dear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer[s] cannot possibly have such a tendency’ to incriminate.” Id., quoting Temple, 75 Va. at 898 (emphasis in original). *212 We addressed the appropriate procedure for determining whether a witness’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege is proper most recently in Bhagwat, supra. We stated: And ‘because the privilege is not a pro | 1 | 1 |
Fowler v. Stategreen2 sentences1968For a discussion as to whether the court may inform a witness of the privilege see Stevens v. State, 232 Md. 33 , 192 A. 2d 73, 77 (1963) cert. denied, 375 U. S. 886 , 84 S. Ct. 160 , 11 L.Ed.2d 115 , Royal v. State, supra, Fowler v. State, 237 Md. 508 , 206 A. 2d 802, 806 (1965), Kitt v. State, 2 Md. 1968For a discussion as to whether the court may inform a witness of the privilege see Stevens v. State, 232 Md. 33 , 192 A. 2d 73, 77 (1963) cert. denied, 375 U. S. 886 , 84 S. Ct. 160 , 11 L.Ed.2d 115 , Royal v. State, supra, Fowler v. State, 237 Md. 508 , 206 A. 2d 802, 806 (1965), Kitt v. State, 2 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Stevens v. Stategreen2 sentences1968For a discussion as to whether the court may inform a witness of the privilege see Stevens v. State, 232 Md. 33 , 192 A. 2d 73, 77 (1963) cert. denied, 375 U. S. 886 , 84 S. Ct. 160 , 11 L.Ed.2d 115 , Royal v. State, supra, Fowler v. State, 237 Md. 508 , 206 A. 2d 802, 806 (1965), Kitt v. State, 2 Md. 1968For a discussion as to whether the court may inform a witness of the privilege see Stevens v. State, 232 Md. 33 , 192 A. 2d 73, 77 (1963) cert. denied, 375 U. S. 886 , 84 S. Ct. 160 , 11 L.Ed.2d 115 , Royal v. State, supra, Fowler v. State, 237 Md. 508 , 206 A. 2d 802, 806 (1965), Kitt v. State, 2 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Negri v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2006Midgett v. State, 223 Md. 282, 289 , 164 A.2d 526, 529 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 853 , 81 S.Ct. 819 , 5 L.Ed.2d 817 (1961). 1995Midgett v. State, 223 Md. 282, 289 , 164 A.2d 526, 529 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 853 , 81 S.Ct. 819 , 5 L.Ed.2d 817 (1961). | 2 | 1995–2006 |
Thompkins v. Mountaineer Investments, LLC
green
1 sentence2020Thompkins, 439 Md. at 132 n.12. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hoffman v. United States
green
1 sentence2006Ultimately, the Court observed that for the trial court to determine that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply, it must be “ ‘perfectly dear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer[s] cannot possibly have such a tendency’ to incriminate.” Id., quoting Temple, 75 Va. at 898 (emphasis in original). *212 We addressed the appropriate procedure for determining whether a witness’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege is proper most recently in Bhagwat, supra. We stated: And ‘because the privilege is not a pro | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Robinson v. State
green
2 sentences1990Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); Robinson v. State, 307 Md. 738, 741-743 , 517 A.2d 94 (1986). 1990Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); Robinson v. State, 307 Md. 738, 741-743 , 517 A.2d 94 (1986). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1990Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); Robinson v. State, 307 Md. 738, 741-743 , 517 A.2d 94 (1986). 1990Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); Robinson v. State, 307 Md. 738, 741-743 , 517 A.2d 94 (1986). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Chairman of Board of Trustees v. Waldron
green
1 sentence1981Chairman of Board v. Waldron, supra at 180, 401 A.2d at 175 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Kitt v. State
green
1 sentence1968For a discussion as to whether the court may inform a witness of the privilege see Stevens v. State, 232 Md. 33 , 192 A. 2d 73, 77 (1963) cert. denied, 375 U. S. 886 , 84 S. Ct. 160 , 11 L.Ed.2d 115 , Royal v. State, supra, Fowler v. State, 237 Md. 508 , 206 A. 2d 802, 806 (1965), Kitt v. State, 2 Md. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Stevens v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1968For a discussion as to whether the court may inform a witness of the privilege see Stevens v. State, 232 Md. 33 , 192 A. 2d 73, 77 (1963) cert. denied, 375 U. S. 886 , 84 S. Ct. 160 , 11 L.Ed.2d 115 , Royal v. State, supra, Fowler v. State, 237 Md. 508 , 206 A. 2d 802, 806 (1965), Kitt v. State, 2 Md. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.