Legal Opinion

Gupta v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 24, 2017No. 36/16PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtGetty, J.

In this case we are asked to determine whether a trial judge’s ex parte communication with a juror violated Maryland Rule 4-326(d)(2) and, if so, whether such violation was harmless. In addition, we must determine whether a suspect can invoke his right to counsel under Miranda1 by demanding to see a lawyer while in a holding cell before interrogation begins.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that although the trial judge did violate Rule 4-326(d)(2), that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, we hold that the Petitioner did not invoke his Miranda right to counsel by…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. North Carolina v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kazadi v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API