Hof v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
MOYLAN, Judge.
This appeal poses a most basic question: Does there even exist such a thing as a law of confessions? Or is it the case that there are, rather, many laws of confessions? Be the law of confessions single or multiple, the burden is, in any event, indisputably on the State to satisfy the trial judge in the first instance that a challenged confession is admissible. It is a legitimate and increasingly popular defense strategy to exploit that allocation of the burden by constructing as arduous an obstacle course as possible for the State to negotiate.
In pursuit of that strategy, the…
2Cases cited148 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
143 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hof v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1995
- Matthews v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995
- In re Darryl P.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2013
- Martin v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Higginbotham v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.