Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dallas v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 26, 2010No. 17 September Term, 2009Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBell, Chief Judge

It is well-established that a criminal defendant’s right to testify in his or her defense is firmly rooted, as enunciated by the United States Supreme Court, see United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 96, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 1117, 122 L.Ed.2d 445, 454 (1993); Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2708-09, 97 L.Ed.2d 37, 46 (1987); Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 164, 106 S.Ct. 988, 993, 89 L.Ed.2d 123, 133 (1986), in three provisions of the federal Constitution. First, the right to testify, “ ‘essential to due process of law in a fair adversary process,’ ” Rock, 483 U.S. at 51, 107…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API