Lee v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtBarbera, J.
In its landmark decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court held that, before police interrogate a person in custody, the police must advise the person, inter alia, that any statement he or she makes “can and will be used against” him or her in court. We decide in this case whether, following the police officer’s issuance of proper Miranda warnings and the suspect’s knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the rights afforded by Miranda, the officer subverted the warnings and waiver by later stating that the interrogation is “between…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Holt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
- Gonzalez v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- Briscoe v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
- Leger v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2013
- Kelly v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.