x999-2" type="concurrence">

Concurring Opinion by

HARRELL, Judge,

which BATTAGLIA, J., joins.

I agree with the Court’s opinion. I write supplementally only to underscore that, as I understand the Court’s opinion, the use by a court of en masse videotape advisements to appraise defendants of the relevant rights is not condemned generally by our decision in this case. The Court holds:

that merely showing a defendant a videotape of a judge providing the advice and instruction required by Rule 4-215(a) is an insufficient predicate for a finding of waiver of counsel by inaction. At the least, there must be some inquiry to determine the defendant’s understanding of the advice and instructions so given.

Majority op. at 361-62, 849 A.2d 494-95 (emphasis added). This case does not present the situation where the defendant was informed of his rights by video and a trial judge subsequently made an inquiry to determine the defendant’s understanding of the advice and instructions given in the video. Rather, there was no individual, particularized inquiry in this case as to whether Richardson understood his rights as explained in the video. As the Court’s opinion points out, several jurisdictions employ a procedure consisting of the video recitation of rights to a group, followed by an individual inquiry by a judge where each defendant is questioned separately to see if he or she understood his or her rights. See majority op. at 369-70, 849 A.2d 499-500. Such a procedure should be acceptable in Maryland as well.

Judge BATTAGLIA authorizes me to state that she joins in the view expressed here.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress