By: Chris Mincher

When it comes to the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), words matter. Although the law is clear that there is no specific mandatory Miranda language, straying from the traditional mantra raises questions. For example, is the notice that “everything that you say can be used on the court day” the same as “anything you say can be used against you in a court of law”? While the former ultimately passed muster in Alvarez-Garcia v. State, the Appellate Court panel split on the significance of omitting the phrase “against you.”

By: Chris Mincher

The murder of William Porter has been a bit of a wellspring for appellate criminal-law questions (many of which have been covered here already) and they’re still popping up 14 years later. Porter v. State produced judicial ink on self-defense, battered-spouse syndrome, the standard for jury instructions, and other wide-ranging topics. Now, earlier this year, Coyle v. State split the Appellate Court as to whether a defendant can, on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, file an untimely petition for writ of certiorari after his attorney — who was appointed by the Office of the Public Defender — botched the initial deadline. (Practice note: If you leave Bethesda at 3 p.m. in standstill beltway rush-hour traffic you may face difficulty getting to the Clerk’s Office in Annapolis by 4:30 close. Just a heads-up.)