Ballard v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtBarbera, J.
The present case calls upon us to explore the contours of the right to counsel during custodial interrogation, which the Supreme Court recognized in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). It is undisputed that Petitioner Warren Lee Ballard received proper Miranda warnings and validly waived his Miranda rights before interrogation began. The question we must answer is whether, mid-way through the interrogation, Petitioner unequivocally invoked his right to counsel when he uttered the words, “You mind if I not say no more and just talk to an attorney about…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- McNeil v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Berghuis v. ThompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wimbish v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2011
- Phillips v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- State v. RichardsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2014
- Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Williams v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2014
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.