Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Barger

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 8, 1966No. [No. 46, September Term, 1965.]Published

1Dissent

Marbury and Barnes, JJ.,

dissent.

Barnes, J., filed the following dissenting opinion.

I dissent in this case because in my opinion the majority of the Court has made an unwarranted and untimely departure from the legal principle enunciated by the Court in Hobbs v. State, 231 Md. 533, 191 A. 2d 238 (1963), cert. den., 375 U. S. 914, 84 S. Ct. 212, 11 L. Ed. 2d 153 (1963).

In Hobbs, the federal courts had held that because the defen*629dant in that criminal case, who had pleaded guilty to three charges of armed robbery with a deadly weapon, was not represented by counsel in the original trial, that…

2Cases cited67 opinions

  1. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940

62 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