Talk:Wiggins v. Smith

A fact from Wiggins v. Smith appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to "effective" legal counsel, but "effective" was not defined until Wiggins v. Smith in 2003?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/October.

Wikipedia

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Style

I'm not sure what the current style guidelines are for court case articles, but to my ears the article sounds very formal and stilted, with a lot of "counsel" and "defendant". Very apropos for legal briefs/specialist writing, but it sounds very stuffy for a general encyclopedia, in my opinion. That said, once the article disappears from the main page, I doubt that non-legally-inclined people (such as myself) will visit the page with any frequency, so a specialist tone may indeed be appropriate. Just something to think about. -- 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

I don't know what the guidelines are. There are not many good articles to imitate. Here is a few I can find. Some are enormously long but I cannot, at the moment, find one of those.

In any case, the article is about mental health law and is meant for reference to articles of interest to forensic psychology, such as competency evaluation, including competency to be executed, mitigating factors, etc. so they are probably not of much interest to attorneys. These cases are vital to forensic mental health practitioners, however. --Mattisse 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Forensic mental health practitioners have to use the legal language of attorneys for any credibility in reports to judges and courtroom testimony. However, if you can make the article more legible that would be great. The best help is when an occasional attorney stops by one of my attempts at these articles on legal decisions and corrects a misuse of a legal word! --Mattisse 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His fate

I wanted to add a 'subsequent events' section discussing his rehearing. Must have concluded with a life sentence since he doesn't appear to be on death row in Maryland nor is he on the list of the executed. There are eight people named Wiggins in prison in Maryland as of this writing. Any information is appreciated. Tempshill (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]