Gupta v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
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
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- North Carolina v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kazadi v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2019