Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington v. Texas/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:43, 3 January 2013.

Washington v. Texas

 * Nominator(s): Lord Roem (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm excited to put this article up for FA after months of work. I look forward to incorporating your suggestions and hearing your thoughts. Have at it! Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - some page range formatting and a few broken harvard citations (only skimmed through):
 * Make sure to use "pp." for page ranges (f.e. #10, #36)
 * Page ranges should use en dashes (MOS:ENDASH).
 * Epstein 2010 has a second author, missing in inline citations.
 * Westen 1998 and Atkinson 1994 lack a full reference entry in "references".
 * I suggest to use this great script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, it highlights problems with inconsistent harv-citations in red. GermanJoe (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just put in that script -- this will be amazingly helpful. Thanks! I'll work on these issues over the next day or so. Lord Roem (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Fixed all issues noted above. Lord Roem (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - my US law knowledge is exactly zero, so just a few more minor nitpicks, no full review:
 * lead "Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. [14] (1967), is a ..." ==> external links within the main article text are discouraged, check the other two Supreme Court FAs for a possible solution.
 * ratification "Federal courts accepted these common law rules and expressly applied [it] in United States v. Reid (1852) ..." ==> "them"
 * application "... of that amendment's Due Process Clause.[11] [The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] says ..." - restart with "This clause ..." to avoid repetition, it's completely detailed in the previous sentence already.
 * "Hurtado left open the question of what 'fundamental principles of liberty and justice' would be protected. In 1897, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's 'just compensation clause' relating to eminent domain takings ..." ==> Are those single quote marks an expection to the general MOS-guideline to use double quotations? Just checking.
 * Opinion ==> consider switching the first and second sentence. Actually the text has Warren - The Court - Warren as subjects and the 3 initial statements read a bit disconnected.
 * Subsequent "With this context in mind, the Clause likely enshrined the right to subpoena witnesses and have a fair trial, rather than a more robust 'right to have a defense'["]. " - The ending quotation mark has no prior start. GermanJoe (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the notes, I believe I fixed your points above. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated status. Both sections done, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I noticed that this article still has an open request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. GoCE tries not to copyedit during nominations, so you might want to withdraw that request, or at least note there that the FAC has begun. Maralia (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the request there. Lord Roem (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - What became of Washington himself? Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, but I'm afraid I could not find the answer. None of the sources discuss what happened afterwards, and there doesn't appear to be any remanded proceedings at the Texas Courts. I would speculate that this means Washington was freed, but that's just my guess. Lord Roem (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I couldn't find anything either. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Prose is good, and the article covers all major aspects of the topic comprehensively and clearly. Ucucha (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The intro should mention Jackie Washington. —Mrwojo (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I've added an extra sentence in the lede on this point. Lord Roem (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Mrwojo (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I did some [ miscellaneous copyediting] just now. The article probably still needs a bit more cleanup, but I think it basically looks good. One thing I would like to see, if possible, is a mention in "Subsequent developments" of whether Washington was retried, and if so, what the outcome of the retrial was. — Rich wales 00:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. As I mention above, I found nothing about what happened after the decision. It appears, from the lack of further opinions, that there were no remanded proceedings, and he was just freed. That's just my speculation though, and I've found nothing to say anything either way. Lord Roem (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I shepardized 388 U.S. 14, and there is one case in the subsequent appellate history: Washington v. State, 417 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967).  A very short opinion saying that the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and that "The opinion of the Supreme Court requires that appellant's motion to reverse and remand this cause be granted. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded."  I couldn't find anything after that — could be because Washington was not retried, or he was retried and acquitted (or had a hung jury, and the state chose not to try him a third time), or he was retried and convicted (and the second conviction was not appealed) — no way to tell which, and of course, we're not allowed to speculate.  I also tried looking for something in a news story or a law journal article, but no luck.  But at least we've got something to add in the subsequent history (and I added it to the infobox just now).  —  Rich wales 03:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks so much! Again, I appreciate the help. I think this then resolves your outstanding concern. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This concern is resolved. I have some other concerns, which I'll list below in a separate comment so they won't get lost.  —  Rich wales 04:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Image check - OK
 * only image is PD (info at ), source and author provided. GermanJoe (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Joe. There was the Supreme Court seal as well, and a shot of Justice Harlan has been added since, but licensing for both of those appears okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've read it through and made some comments on the first few sections. I am concerned that the article still needs some work. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I took the course and a courtroom lawyer has to have a good working knowledge of such things. Not opposing yet, but just judging by what I feel is necessary in the first few sections, someone needs to go through it to assure legal accuracy, accessibility to the lay reader, and coherent sequences of events. Here are some comments, but I shouldn't have to comment at this depth. This isn't peer review.
 * Lede
 * I'd like to see the term "incorporation" used in the first paragraph, in such a way that it doesn't have to be defined. One way to do this is to change the first sentence after the legal citation to " is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment  applies to the states, or is incorporated, by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  (add links and pipes as needed).
 * I suggest deleting the second sentence of the lede entirely. I don't see that it is necessary, as all the information (but for the characterization) is contained in the third sentence.
 * while concurring in its judgment" perhaps make more layman-friendly with "while agreeing with the outcome" or similar.
 * "as he regularly did during cases involving incorporation of the Bill of Rights." During?  Perhaps "in"
 * ""Washington represents the continued application of Sixth Amendment trial guarantees against the states." I'm not sure "represents", with the present tense, is what you are looking for here.  Maybe change the beginning to "The decision in Washington saw the continued …"
 * "I would simplify "the right to trial by an impartial jury" to "the right to trial by jury" lest the reader think the focus is on the word "impartial" and misunderstand.
 * "successive decisions tightening when compulsory process is required." Perhaps "later decisions."  The rest is implied.
 * Background
 * "Benson (1892)" Surely not the full name of the case.
 * I'd start with the common law doctrine before mentioning the Constitution. I'd also more clearly state that the Bill of Rights guarantees were not originally intended to be applicable to the states.  That's sort of implied, but not clearly.
 * Justice Matthews should be given his full name and a link.
 * Why is the railroad takings case not named?
 * I would delete "opening" in "broad opening statement". The Court plainly did not begin its ruling with that, and it's a pun on what lawyers do at a trial after the judge says "Opening statements, please".
 * How is what the Court said in Twining in any way a rule? Sounds like dicta to me.
 * "Specifically, the Court said that the test was whether the right" Was this in Twining?
 * "Though eight justices said". Not said.  Agreed, concurred, stated.
 * "Expansion of procedural trial rights". This subsection seems very weak. Perhaps it should be framed by describing the Warren Court's work applying the Bill of Rights to the states, throwing in some famous cases
 * I'll wait for a response.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mostly done. Few things not done. (1) Change to first paragraph of the lede. I'm not opposed to putting 'incorporation' in the first paragraph, but if your concern was readability, I thought "applicable to the states" was more understandable. (2) My source (Walker) explains the Twining statement as part of the holding, i.e. it's the argument for why incorporation works. Thanks for your comments! Best, Lord Roem (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment. In general, the content and organization of this article seem very good. I have some concerns, which deal mostly with copyedit-level issues.
 * I believe every first mention of a Supreme Court case should be accompanied by an inline cite to the case using the "ussc" template. Some cases are currently cited on first mention (but without using "ussc"); other cases are accompanied only by an inline reference to a secondary source.
 * If a case is cited in multiple footnotes, the first one should be a full cite, but the remaining cites should be abbreviated. Thus, current footnote #8 should say "Benson, 146 U.S. at 336." — and current footnote #22 should read "Hovey, 167 U.S. at 444–445."
 * If possible, it would be nice to include a summary description of the oral arguments and the attorneys who presented same. See the comments along these lines in the FAC for my own current candidate article, Afroyim v. Rusk.
 * The word amongst should probably be changed to among wherever it appears, in order to conform more closely to common American usage.
 * Numerous other small proofreading issues throughout the article.

These are little things, but when we're considering making something a Featured Article, I believe it's appropriate to be somewhat picky. — Rich wales 04:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Rich. I've fixed a few of the issues you pointed out. Two things though. First, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by using USSC template. Do you mean using the full citation for a case in US reports like Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) the first time a case is mentioned? If yes, that's easily something I can do. Second, re: oral arguments, I haven't been able to find any articles analyzing what the arguments and/or discussing them. I'm afraid If I try to go through the transcript and make comments on it, it would be very close to (if not entirely) OR.
 * Thanks again for your comments, Lord Roem (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By "using the 'ussc' template", I mean using inline cites like this one (quoted from Afroyim v. Rusk) on the first mention of any case:


 *  In 1857, the Supreme Court held in Dred Scott v. Sandford that .... 


 * Regarding oral arguments, I understand there might not be any commentary on these in secondary sources, but you need(ed) to at least look. At the very least, maybe you can mention the date on which oral arguments were held, and who the lawyers were who argued the case, and who wrote the briefs (if different from the lawyers who did the oral arguments; probably not necessary to list everyone who was "on the briefs").  —  Rich wales 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah! I can certainly put those cites in. As for oral arguments, I can can certainly find the lawyers who argued the case. I have checked for oral argument coverage, but I have no problem seeing if LexusNexus does any better. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * USSC template added. As for oral arguments, there's no books written on the the case (outside of a law review article on the decision), unlike Afroyim. I found the names of the attorneys who argued the case, but not much beyond that. I found potentially one NYTimes article from the day of the arguments, but it's trapped behind a paywall. :-/ Lord Roem (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you give me a cite to this New York Times story? I might be able to get it for you.  —  Rich wales 01:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My search on this page leads me to believe this or this could be an article about the oral arguments of the previous day. Lord Roem (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Using ProQuest, I found two extremely short "U.S. Supreme Court" articles (for March 16 and 17, 1967), which include "649—Jackie Washington, petr., v. Texas" in lists of oral arguments held on March 15 and 16, respectively. "Petr." is clearly "petitioner", and I assume "649" is a docket number.  No details at all about the cases.  Sorry.  —  Rich wales 01:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, m'lord, what I'd be most interested in seeing at this point is a careful proofreading of the text for things like punctuation and capitalization (I don't remember any spelling mistakes at the moment, but check for those too). It sounds to me like you've done your due diligence as far as trying to find more info about the background of the decision. Try cleaning up the prose you've already got. Let me know if you really need help with proofreading, but it's "your" article right now and you deserve the opportunity to work on it. — Rich wales 02:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I found one such error after putting the text through a word processor. Lord Roem (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's some more comments
 * History
 * "While Reid was overruled on different grounds," Mentioning this without saying when is confusing.
 * "the scope of that amendment's Due Process Clause.[12] This Clause says that " Why is clause capped when by itself but amendment isn't?
 * "The Court of Criminal Appeals, which reasoned that the compulsory process clause " Problem here.
 * Opinion
 * "This broad right was necessary to detail thoroughly, he wrote, because ignoring the weight of the issue would risk making the right to compel witnesses futile." I read it over carefully, and twice, and I still don't understand what you're talking about here.
 * Subsequent developments
 * " an asserted government interest in deporting illegal aliens" I don't understand why the "asserted". Does it have anything to do with the ongoing dispute about the status of illegal aliens in the US?
 * " a series of deliberate "discovery violations" at trial led the trial judge to block attempts at postponing proceedings to allow an undisclosed defense witness the chance to testify mid-trial." First, is the quote "discovery violations" really worth it? Better to avoid a quote, and pipe to discovery (law). Additionally, this sentence doesn't make sense to me.  I realize it's hard to sum up a complex legal and factual pattern in a phrase, but this needs improvement.
 * Analysis
 * This section seems just a list of descriptions of law review articles. I think the prose could be improved, so that there's some cohesion to the section.  At least say inline when the articles came out, it's hard to judge these articles without knowing when were issued.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Work seems generally good. The only thing is, these Supreme Court case articles seem to follow a wikiproject guideline, or some such, but if someone will tell me where to go (my talk is fine) I want to propose that there be more context as to public and press/law review reaction at the time. I feel it is helpful in placing the cases in context.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk page for the WikiProject can be found at WT:SCOTUS. Just remember that the amount and quality of material you are asking for may not always be available.  Not every US Supreme Court case makes an immediate, major impression on the press, the public, or the legal community.  Obviously, if this sort of stuff can be found, serious consideration should be made to including it in the article in order to place the case in a wider context.  But the scarcity of such material in a Featured Article candidate does not necessarily mean not enough research has been done — it may simply mean that material documenting this sort of reaction does not exist (even in spite of search efforts using services like LexisNexis or ProQuest).  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. The article seems very well written to me, covering all the necessary points in a clear manner. I just finished doing some copyediting and small additions, and assuming the sources all say what they are represented as saying, I think the article is ready now. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia
Oppose on prose, 1a, jargon (lead is indecipherable), and minor MOS issues: These are trivialities that should be cleaned up in FAs; I haven't read the article yet. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to link witness? Do not most English-speaking people know what that is?
 * Should not Certiorari be in italics (Latin)? Why is our article not italicized?
 * See the same kinds of issues I raised at Featured article candidates/Afroyim v. Rusk/archive1; common law is used multiple times in the article before it is linked. See WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK-- link on first occurrence.  Please review throughout.
 * Inconsistent citations (again, please also review my comments at Featured article candidates/Afroyim v. Rusk/archive1). WP:ENDASH attention on page ranges needed, sometimes multiple pages use p. other times, pp.  No accessdate on archives.gov.

Reading through the lead:
 * the first problem I hit (as a layperson) is the "compulsory" issue. This is not adequately defined for a general audience, and I'm forced to backtrack through the lead to try to decipher what is meant in earlier sentences.  When the article says in the second paragraph:"The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required compulsory process as implicit in the meaning of 'due process'." I'm left not knowing what is the legal meaning of "compulsory" here.  So, I backtrack to the first paragraph, trying to figure out what is "compulsory" about "guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to call witnesses".  Then I have to go look up Compulsory Process Clause to try to figure out what the connection is.  Without clicking on that article, I am unable to discern what "guaranteeing the right ... to call witnesses" has to do with "required compulsory process as implicit in the meaning of 'due process'. " The lead needs to be more digestible to a layperson.  We need to know exactly what is compulsary, and we need to know that without clicking on a link.  You shouldn't assume knowledge that isn't there, or explained on the page, and the parenthetical about the Compulsary Clause isn't doing it.  Just tell the reader who is compelled to do what.
 * The same thing happens with the link to "incorporation of The Bill of Rights". A laywer may understand what is meant here, but the lead needs to be digestible to all of us.  Without clicking on the link, I have no idea what the final sentence of the second para means.  Do not oblige readers to click on a link, particularly in the lead.
 * Then I get to "The decision in Washington saw the continued application of Sixth Amendment trial guarantees against the states" and I have no idea what the "continued" is about.
 * Then, "Aside from the right to trial by a jury, which was incorporated against the states in 1968, ... " you attorneys know something we layfolk don't know here, but why is "right to trial" "against" states? This is the lead; it needs to be very digestible.  A layperson only thinks in terms of "everyone has the right to trial".
 * Most of the third para of the lead is one sentence, so adding to the above, by the time I get through it, I'm lost. Without clicking on another article, what does it mean that the Vicinage clause is "not incorporated"?
 * And, so by the time I sort through all of that, and the lengthy unexplained clauses, I finally determine there is a grammatical error in the lead:
 * Aside from the right to trial by a jury ... the right to compulsory process was the last of the Sixth Amendment rights to held to apply to the states.
 * And repetitive prose ... right, right, right by the time we eliminate all the clauses in the middle.

I hope the article gets better than the lead, but please make the lead decipherable to a non-attorney.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandy, thanks for the review! I've made some significant changes to the lead to make it more readable; please tell me what you think. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that Lord Roem removed the word "certiorari" from the article — but I thought it might be worth mentioning that this word is normally not italicized in legal writing (even though it is a Latin word). —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll get back to this tomorrow, but you don't have to remove words for me :) I just wondered if it should be italicized!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, the first two paragraphs of the lead are more digestible to me (non-lawyer) now, but I fear I've made you move too far in the wrong direction :) This sentence:
 * In this way, it was necessary for a defendant's "due process" rights, the right to have fair proceedings, which is a rule that applies to the states.
 * feels "dumbed down". And it's just ... muddled.  It still needs to be better merged with the preceding sentence.  I'll offer a suggestion, but what do I know-- please do it your own way:
 * The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the right to be able to compel defense witnesses to testify necessary for a defendant's "due process" rights to fair proceedings, which applies to the states.
 * Is that what is meant?
 * Yes! Exactly. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On this, see my earlier comments at the other FAC (which Rich moved to talk) about gender neutral language ... you don't have to use "his":
 * could be balanced against a defendant's right to present his witnesses ...
 * That one has an easy fix (just remove the "his" and it says the same thing), but please review throughout.
 * The third paragraph of the lead has been entirely replace now, and without reading the article, it's more confusing than the paragraph before. I really don't know what it's saying at all.
 * The impact of Washington was narrowed by a later case, Taylor v. Illinois (1988), in which the Court said that "countervailing public interests" (the rest of the paragraph doesn't explain to me what these "countervailing interests" are) could be balanced against a defendant's right to present his witnesses.
 * In the (Taylor trial?) a defense attorney's deliberate failure to disclose evidence (is that the "countervailing public interest"? If so, I have to work to figure that out) to prosecutors (insert "had" here, because you're referring back to the original trial?) resulted in other defense witnesses being blocked from testifying. So, they should have been allowed to testify, so what was "narrowed" by the ruling?
 * Legal scholars have seen this (what? the narrowing? But I haven't figured out yet what was narrowed) as a change to relying on "efficient justice", a more limited vision of trial rights than the "right to present a defense" created in Washington.  Now completely lost ... what is more efficient about what here ... something happened with a deliberate failure to disclose evidence that kept witnesses out who should have been able to testify ... that's as far as I'm understanding.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked through instances of gendered language. If you see any I missed, please feel free to point it out. I've also worked on clarifying the changes to the third paragraph in the lead. Lord Roem (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, striking my oppose because the lead is now comprehensible to a layperson, but I haven't read any further or done any further review (can you all take extra care with legal leads in the future? That's pretty much all a non-lawyer may read, and they need to be crystal clear for the non-attorneys).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments –
 * "but was blocked by Texas courts because Texas law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that co-defendants would be more likely to lie for each other on the stand." Two redundancies in this sentence: Texas and "co-defendants". For variety, the second use of Texas could be "state law" instead, while the second "co-defendants" could be made into "they", as it's obvious who this refers to.
 * Ratification of the Sixth Amendment: "to avoid either defendant from being convicted" sounds a bit awkward. I think replacing "avoid" with "prevent" would be a sufficient fix.
 * Harlan's concurrence: "he argued instead instead that the State's...". Repeated word in there.
 * <s.There appear to be excessive italics in reference 61, in comparison to the rest of the refs. I don't know much about law article citations, but imagine that they should be consistent for a given page. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – Maybe it's because I have taken business law classes in the past, but I had no issues in understanding the article. It appears well-written enough to me, and I think it meets FA standards. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Source spotcheck -- randomly checking four citations for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, I saw no issues with nos. 28, 34 and 62, but I couldn't find the quote "absurdity of the rule" for no. 48 on the page indicated (or elsewhere in the source for that matter, when I ran a search on the phrase). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That was language in the opinion itself; I've changed the cite to reflect that. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.