Zemo v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, after a defendant has been given his Miranda rights, “[a]d-verse comment (nay, all comment) on a defendant’s invocation of a right to silence is constitutionally forbidden”
• court erred when it permitted detective to testify that he gave defendant Miranda warnings and defendant then chose to remain silent
• Error to advise jury that defendant remained silent after he was advised of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Wills v. State, 82 Md.App. 669, 677, 573 A.2d 80 (1990
• Error to advise jury that defendant remained silent after he was advised of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Wills v. State, 82 Md. App. 669, 677, 573 A.2d 80 (1990

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).