Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wright v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 17, 1986No. 61, September Term, 1984Published

1DissentCole, Judge

I have no quarrel with the manner in which the majority resolves the issue presented in Part I of its opinion. Indeed, I thoroughly agree with the analysis. However, I cannot agree with the majority’s analysis or conclusion that statements made during a plea bargain are admissible when the defendant rejects the bargain before trial. I therefore respectfully dissent from Part II.

Coley entered into a plea agreement with the State in which the State agreed to allow Coley to plead guilty to murder in the second degree in exchange for Coley’s promise to do certain things. The majority concedes…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Kercheval v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Hillard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  4. United States v. Glen HermanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  5. State v. BrockmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API