Facon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 79 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he same approach can easily and effectively be used with respect to the right to prompt presentment for an accused detained pursuant to an arrest. It would be a simple matter for the police to advise the accused as well of his or her right to prompt presentment before a District Court Commissioner, that the Commissioner is a judicial officer not connected with the police, and that the Commissioner, among other things, will inform the accused of each offense with which he or she is charged, including the allowable penalties attached to those charges, furnish the accused with a written copy of the charges, advise the accused of his or her right to counsel, make a pre-trial release determination, and if, as here, the accused has been charged with a felony beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court, of his or her right to a preliminary hearing before a judge. See Md. Rule 4-213. The police could inform the defendant that he or she may waive that right of prompt presentment and agree to submit to interrogation, subject to the right to end the interrogation at any time and demand to be taken promptly before a Commissioner. That kind of advice and a form for the written waiver can as easily be standardized as the Miranda advice and waiver have been, and should not take more than a few minutes to accomplish. We hold that any deliberate and unnecessary delay in presenting an accused before a District Court Commissioner, in violation of Rule 4-212(e) or (f) must be given very hea”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Md. App. 75 - Daniels v. State · 156 Md. App. 184 - Odum v. State

2. “[T]he prompt presentment requirement under [Md. Rule 4-212(e) ] is not triggered where the defendant is held in custody outside of this State, absent evidence that officers of this State were working in conjunction with the other jurisdiction for purposes other than to secure extradition. There is a noteworthy, albeit narrow, exception to our holding that extraterritorial delays will not begin the running of time under Rule 4r-212(e). As both Federal and other state courts have recognized, the police cannot avoid the requirement of the presentment rule through collusion with a foreign jurisdiction. Where it is demonstrated that officers from this State are working in collaboration with the other jurisdiction, interrogating a defendant prior to his transfer, the presentment requirement may apply to the officers’ activities.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Md. App. 75 - Daniels v. State · 174 Md. App. 647 - Ayala v. State

3. “§ 10-912. 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 4 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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 158 Md. App. 402 - Freeman v. State · 194 Md. App. 327 - Moore v. State