Lee v. State

MURPHY, J.,

concurring and dissenting, in which BELL, C.J. joins.

I agree that the Petitioner is entitled to a new trial. I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the detective’s improper promise of confidentiality “did not render Petitioner’s statements involuntary under either federal or state constitutional law, or Maryland common law.” In my opinion, an incriminating statement that results from a promise of confidentiality is simply not the product of a “knowing and intelligent” waiver.1 I would therefore hold that, on remand, the State is prohibited from making any use —…