Talk:Maouloud Baby v. State

Unbalanced POV in case description; possibly irrelevant altogether
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)

other needs
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)