134 Md. App. 152 - Marr v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have in fact never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than ‘custodial interrogation’ — which a preliminary hearing will not always, or even usually, involve. If the Miranda right to counsel can be invoked at a preliminary hearing, it could be argued, there is no logical reason why it could not be invoked by a letter prior to arrest, or indeed even prior to identification as a suspect. Most rights must be asserted when the government seeks to take the action they protect against. The fact that we have allowed the Miranda right to counsel, once asserted, to be effective with respect to future custodial interrogation does not necessarily mean that we will allow it to be asserted initially outside the context of custodial interrogation, with similar future effect.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 175 Md. App. 90 - Costley v. State · 178 Md. App. 292 - Hoerauf v. State

2. “Even if appellant’s arguments discussed above had merit, we would hold that appellant did not validly invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel because the invocation by counsel occurred outside of the context of custodial interrogation. Miranda’s safeguards were intended to provide protection against the inherent coerciveness of custodial interrogation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Darryl P. · 178 Md. App. 292 - Hoerauf v. State

3. “Failure to take defendant before judicial officer after arrest. (a) Confession not rendered inadmissible.—A confession may not be excluded from evidence solely because the defendant was not taken before a judicial officer after arrest ■within any time period specified by Title 4 of the Maryland Rules. (b) Effect of failure to comply strictly with Title h of the Maryland Rules.—Failure to strictly comply with the provisions of Title 4 of the Maryland Rules pertaining to taking a defendant before a judicial officer after arrest is only one factor, among others, to be considered by the court in deciding the voluntariness and admissibility of a confession.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 144 Md. App. 1 - Facon v. State