Gonzalez v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtBarbera, J.
It is settled that, before conducting a custodial interrogation, the police must comply with the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Miranda requires the police to advise the suspect that “he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” Id. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Only if the suspect, upon receiving valid warnings, makes a…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Holt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
- Kusi v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Madrid v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2021
- Portillo Funes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- Barnes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.