Talk:United States constitutional criminal procedure
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States constitutional criminal procedure was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution
Miranda, Massiah, the Fourth Amendment, etc. are about criminal investigations, i.e. cops and robbers. This article is about criminal procedure, i.e. legal proceedings. This distinction makes much conceptual sense (the former constitutional provisions regulate law enforcement officers; the latter regulate lawyers: judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys), and in fact most law schools teach criminal investigations and criminal procedure as separate courses. Savidan05:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be the weird guy adding immigration related counsel issues but... Should any discussion of In re Lozada (which I plan on writing shortly) and the mess that has followed it be made? Essentially the oddity is that while you have no right to appointed counsel in deportation hearings you do have a right under Lozada (now upheld by Eric Holder, though briefly struck down by Michael Mukasey) to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Staxringoldtalkcontribs17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is only about cases that are both (1) constitutional and (2) criminal. While I am not familiar with Lozada, it is not criminal and may not be constitutional. I have no problem pointing out the unavailability of the Sixth Amendment right in civil proceedings, as I think it clarifies the contour of the right, but otherwise this is not the article for deportation procedure. As such, I doubt Lozada is based on the Sixth Amendment; more likely, it just analogizes to Sixth Amendment IAC, and is based on Fifth Amendment due process or sub-constitutional law (although I could be wrong; again, I have not read it). Savidan19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly it does relate to 5th amendment due process, but the complaints over it stem from the fact that no 6th amendment right exists (and without that, according to Mukasey at least) you can't make a connection that puts the government at fault to make there be a Constitutional issue at all. Regardless, your position makes sense, thanks! Staxringoldtalkcontribs20:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
As this is the longest un-reviewed article, I am tagging this for review. It will take me several hours to review the material. Expect a detailed analysis by May 7 or May 8. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've examined the references and found that they link to other (many red linked) cases of which themselves would contain the material for the reference. I do not believe that is acceptable, especially considering the volume of the cases and the length of each one. For Herring v New York I was expecting something like a link to the actual summary judgement which points to a specific section or decision. Such as this. [1] Where the first line summarizes the content, "A total denial of the opportunity for final summation in a nonjury criminal trial as well as in a jury trial deprives the accused of the basic right to make his defense..."
Without links to verifiable material I cannot pass this, most readers want a link to the citation or something material which allows independent checking of that matter. Here is where I essentially have a problem, the case (as a whole) is listed where they have to be independently searched out and some have dozens of pages of material without a page or a section noted. Such as: [2] That being said, most of these are verifiable with simple searches. Could you please respond to this matter, as for references this seems to be allowable, but given the existence of so many easily verifiable online references (usually copy and pasting the case into Google), if proper relevant texts can be accessed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilinks are for the convenience of the reader if they choose to follow them. In the case of redlinks, their use is to (1) indicate whether or not Wikipedia has an article about that case; or (2) become useful as soon as such an article is created. I've never seen a Supreme Court case determined non-notable at AfD, and new articles about Supreme Court cases are created every day, so the redlinks themselves should not be a problem.
As for verification, the source cited is the the United States Reports, not some website. Offline sources are accepted routinely and universally on Wikipedia, and there is no requirement that each reference contain an external link to the exact line of text referred to. Other editors are more enamored with Justia (and similar sites) than I am. Rather than list its many infirmities here (for example, the fact that there are now hundreds of thousands of broken links to Justia on Wikipedia because of the regularity with which they change their url system), I simply note that there is no policy requiring each case citation in a reference to contain an external link, and that it should be at the discretion of the main author whether to do so. These sites are free as in "free beer," not freedom. We owe them nothing. Savidan15:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting they don't exist because they aren't notable, just that they haven't been created and interwiki sourcing is frowned upon, but for the sake of technical matters regarding sources changing URL types often enough to warrant simply citing the case is no problem. I'll spend some time cross checking the facts and the sources, I've done a few and found no reason to doubt the paraphrasing of the article thus far. It seems the last reviewer to do this disappeared on you, its been waiting for such a long time and I want to have a clearer picture of the situation.
I've also noted some of the images being used in the article are involved in a legal dispute, the photos of the paintings, a separate matter for which make me a tad uneasy on a GA article review. While under USA law they are fine, the on going dispute (several years so far) is of concern to me. While I address the other issues, is there a better substitute or option for the King George III painting and Walter Raleigh? I might ask for a second opinion if you don't want to switch them over, because they are appropriately tagged, but ongoing legal disputes are a concern for this reviewer. 6.A of the GA criteria states, "(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;" and while it doesn't detail legal disputes, I do have reservations as to whether or not it is a factor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that interwiki sourcing is a cardinal sin, and this article does not commit it. The source is the official report of the decision in the U.S. Reports. The interwiki link is no different than any other situation where Wikipedia has (or could someday have) an article about the source being cited (ditto for an article about the author of a source).
As for the images, could you be more specific? I am aware of no reason why any of the images would not be regarded as in the public domain in the US (which is the only jurisdiction Wikipedia follows for this purpose). If you are referring to the George III image, the tags on it make clear that the image is acceptable for use on Wikipedia (and Commons, which is even stricter); they are only there to warn people who might republished in other jurisdictions. Savidan18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no worries. I didn't realize that trying to pin decent references would be defeated by shifting of URLs which would break them all again. They are fine, just don't want other people to ask the same question later and I have no response or reason for not having URL sources when they were so easy. The image matter has this tag, "While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof." While the stance is, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs."
For that concern (mainly for those who would use this article in the UK), I had some reservations. Given the stance I do not believe those two images should prevent it from GA, but I like second opinions. The whole dispute is over the picture of a public domain work being copyrighted, the work itself is not, but the dispute is over the picture being copyrighted. The matter concerns all of the works in the National Portrait Gallery it seems. More on it here. [3] Its the only reason why I am asking if a substitution is preferable to you or if I should ask the relevant board for their opinion on the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the NPG situation. I do not prefer to substitute. The Foundation and community have taken the position that the images are OK, and that is good enough for me. Savidan19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then its good enough for me to! I will begin analyzing the content in the coming hours. Still expect a detailed review tomorrow or Tuesday. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
All are easily obtainable even without direct links to the cases, as previously noted, the breaking of any urls occur too frequently and are easily obtainable elsewhere as public documents.
Pass
(c) (original research)
Good paraphrasing, sticks to material, no original research.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
Covers it well.
Pass
(b) (focused)
Goes into detail with relevant cases.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
Yes, adequately reflects the historical rulings.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
No edit wars.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
Yes. The issue noted above is not a GA affecting matter.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
With the exception of two citations to Amar 1996, this article appears to be entirely sourced to specific cases and decisions. That is a fine standard for a law review article, perhaps, but is not how things are done on Wikipedia. I think this article needs to be rewritten to be based on secondary sources. The specific case law citations are fine, I guess, but they should be put in a separate references group, and everything else needs citations to secondary sources - books, journal articles, etc. See WP:SECONDARY.
@Savidan: Would you happen to still be active on Wikipedia? Would you have any interest in undertaking such work? It'd be a lot, unfortunately, but I think it's necessary. SnowFire (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First of all, the content seems like a good contribution to free & shareable media. It seems competently written and is probably a great start for developing a GA-class article. Unfortunately there is a gigantic blocking issue here that means it really can't be a Wikipedia GA article as is: WP:PRIMARY, massive overdependence on primary sources, failing GA2b, referenced to reliable sources. Maybe this is the style for an article in a legal review journal, but it's not Wikipedia GA-class referencing style. Of the 179 references, 3 of them are to secondary sources, and 176 are to case law or the Constitution directly. Now, having case law citations "on the side" is fine and useful (whether integrated into citations like "Secondary source p. X, citing Devouard v Wales", or in a separate references group), but there needs to be sources to, say, the kind of textbooks law students in the US read. Citing case law directly is even worse than articles that are heavily reliant on, say, Herodotus; at least with classical-era writers, what they wrote is all we have to work with at times and clearly relevant even when wrong. But there are tens of thousands of modern case law decisions handed down, many of which are ignored as far as precedent, and others that are outright overturned. And others where the dissent is considered more controlling and cited! Citing these can potentially be very misleading. We need a secondary source to mediate which cases are considered relevant. If we're lucky, maybe the article doesn't have to change that much, but someone really does need to go check it against modern high-quality secondary sources and add in references to the secondary sources.
As a secondary concern... and this one is less pressing.. GA3A, broad in coverage. The references mostly peter out after 2012 or so. My understanding is that there has been some changes since due to the Roberts Court (e.g. weakening the exclusionary rule, which seems not to be discussed at all currently). Further, this article appears to be heavily set in the contemporary of ~2012. Maybe a new spinoff article needs to be created on "Evolution of United States constitutional criminal procedure" or the like, but the history of US law is relevant, too. What was procedure like in 1783-1955? That seems completely unexplored currently. So we need both updates on 2012-2024, and possibly some more acknowledgement of historical criminal procedure (even if this might be spun out into a new article). SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg)
Undetermined
Pass