60 Md. App. 86 - Schmidt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Not all questions asked of a prisoner or suspect while he is in custody constitute a ‘custodial interrogation’ for purposes of requiring Miranda warnings. As Judge Orth noted for the Court in Vines , it is generally agreed that Miranda does not apply to ‘administrative questioning,’ the routine questions asked of all arrestees while being processed or ‘booked.’ Such routine questioning is conducted for purposes unrelated to evidence gathering and prosecution, so the questions are general in nature rather than specifically directed to any criminal offense. Similarly, any questions asked of an arrestee at a bail hearing should normally be general and unrelated to evidence gathering or prosecution.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fenner v. State

2. “"In this case, when the District Court judge asked Schmidt if he knew the alleged victim, the purpose of that question was to enable the judge to set an appropriate amount of bail, not to secure information for the prosecution. Whether the victim and the accused were acquaintances or total strangers may affect the nature and strength of the evidence against the accused. Accused of a serious crime and facing a potentially severe sentence if convicted, a defendant who can be identified with certainty by the alleged victim may represent a potential danger to the prosecuting witness or a substantial risk of nonappearance. These factors are clearly relevant to pretrial release.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fenner v. State

3. ““Schmidt was unquestionably in custody when he appeared before the District Court judge for a bail hearing. He had been arrested and charged; the very purpose of the hearing was to determine whether or under what circumstances he might be released from custody. With respect to the custody aspect, the fact that Schmidt was in a courtroom rather than the stationhouse is of no significance. Custodial questioning can occur in settings other than the police station....””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fenner v. State