Ballard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he phrase 'you mind if ...' in [that] context [was] a colloquialism; it is reasonably assumed that the speaker [was] not actually seeking permission to do the thing desired or to have the desired thing occur.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 237 Md. App. 317 - Vargas-Salguero v. State · 216 Md. App. 492 - Malaska v. State

2. “Where the accused seeks to invoke this right, however, the request for counsel “cannot be equivocal or ambiguous.” Id. at 490 , 24 A.3d 96 . Rather, the Court explained: [invocation of the Miranda right to counsel “requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney.” But if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning. Rather, the suspect must unambiguously request counsel. As we have observed, “a statement either is such an assertion of the right to counsel or it is not.” ... [A suspect] must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. If the statement fails to meet the requisite level of clarity, Edwards does not require that the officers stop questioning the suspect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 230 Md. App. 288 - Porter v. State

3. “But even if viewed not as a colloquialism but rather as having literal meaning, the import of the words is no different. Viewed from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in the position of Detective Kaiser, the most that could be said about Petitioner's words, 'You mind if I not say no more and just talk to an attorney about this,' is that Petitioner, though undoubtedly asking for an attorney, sought to couch the request in polite or (more likely, given the context) deferential terms. In other words, to the extent that the phrase 'you mind if ...' is understood as Petitioner genuinely posing a question, the only question he reasonably posed was whether Detective Kaiser 'mind[ed]' if Petitioner stopped talking and got an attorney.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 237 Md. App. 317 - Vargas-Salguero v. State