Legal Opinion

Fennell v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 26, 1964No. [App. No. 23, September Term, 1964.]PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPrescott, J.

In his petition and amendment thereto (Maryland Rule BK41 d), the petitioner made four contentions: (1) that the State had knowingly used perjured testimony at his trial; (2) that the State had suppressed certain evidence which would have tended to exculpate him; (3) that he was arraigned without the aid of counsel; (4) that his arrest was unlawful and a search and seizure thereafter conducted by the police were illegal; hence the introduction into evidence of personal property illegally seized and his statements obtained after an illegal arrest violated his constitutional rights.

The trial…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rice v. WardenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  2. Smith v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
  3. Adair v. Warden of the Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
  4. Roberts v. WardenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Wilson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  2. Ross v. WardenCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1967
  3. Cirincione v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  4. Green v. WardenCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  5. Dennis v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966

4 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