Legal Opinion

Redman v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 9, 1975No. 615, 812, September Term, 1974PublishedCited by 12 opinions

September Term, 1974.]

1Opinion of the CourtMoylan, J.

This case involves the requirement that a defendant be present when testimony is taken at a pretrial suppression hearing. Article 5 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights established the requirement that an accused be present at his trial. Duffy v. State, 151 Md. 456, 135 A. 189; Plump v. Warden, 220 Md. 662, 153 A. 2d 269; Grohman v. State, 248 Md. 552, 267 A. 2d 193; Young v. State, 5 Md. App. 383, 247 A. 2d 751. In implementing this common law provision, enshrined in our Declaration of Rights, Maryland Rule 775 provides:'

“The accused shall be present at the arraignment, at every stage of…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Brookhart v. JanisSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Midgett v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  4. People v. AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
  5. State v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hughes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  2. Samson v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  3. Commonwealth v. McLaurinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Haley v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  5. Sewell v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1977

7 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