Freeman v. State
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
857 A.2d 557 (2004)
On March 30, 2000, Adele Florence Freeman (defendant) shot Kevin Gross to death. Immediately thereafter, Freeman drove to a Maryland State Police station and informed Sergeant Albert Paton that she had shot someone and that the gun was in her purse. Paton had previously heard over the radio that a female had shot a male on Wilson Road. Paton took Freeman’s purse and placed her in a room. Paton then handcuffed the hand Freeman used to shoot Gross to a bench, in order to later perform a gunshot residue test. Paton then advised Freeman, word for word from a card, of her Miranda rights. Freeman indicated that she understood her rights. However, when Paton asked Freeman if she would “knowingly waive these rights,” she did not say anything. Paton then secured the gun from Freeman’s purse and asked her how many shots she fired. Freeman said she did not know. Paton asked Freeman what had happened and Freeman told him that she did not want to talk about it “right now.” Paton determined that no live ammunition was in the gun and left everything the way it was, closed it back up, and secured the gun. Paton did not ask Freeman any further questions. Corporal David Ruel was assigned to investigate the homicide. After giving Freeman some food, he read her Miranda rights, and she signed the form. Freeman did not request an attorney and appeared to be calm, intelligent, and articulate. Freeman then recounted the events leading up to the shooting of Gross. When she had finished, Ruel asked Freeman if she would provide a written or taped statement. Freeman declined to do so and requested a lawyer. Ruel then stopped all questioning of Freeman. Freeman was charged with first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree assault, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Freeman filed a motion to suppress her statements made to Paton. After a hearing, the trial court denied to suppress Freeman’s statements. Freeman was convicted and she appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Hollander, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 169,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.