Talk:Maouloud Baby v. State

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unbalanced POV in case description; possibly irrelevant altogether[edit]

The narrative under the "case" heading is the testimony of the defendant in the original case. By using this is as the "official version" of what transpired that day and ignoring others' testimonies, the case is presented deceptively as void of competing versions of what transpired. Additionally, since the official findings of the convicting case is not used, the narrative in question is not entirely relevant as it is supposed to set up the reader's ability to understand the historical conflict from which the appeals process emerged. There are competing versions based on various different testimonies, but the case in question is predicated upon the findings in the original trial where the defendant was found guilty, and subsequently became the appellant in Baby vs Maryland. These findings -- that led to the conviction -- should be used if any single version is to be used at all.72.244.203.102 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other needs[edit]

The article also needs an analysis of why the Court of Special Appeals ruled to overturn the conviction (application of common law). Understanding of the importance of this case is hampered by the apparent lack of other specific wikipedia articles on (1) legal consent to sexual activity in U.S. law (and withdrawal of consent), (2) juvenile/adult crimes, (3) effect of common law in Maryland criminal law. Artilce also will need definitions of Maryland state charges for sexual offenses; watch for update on ruling by Court of Appeals. Deanlaw (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]