Talk:Brady v. Maryland

Untitled

To the person who keeps changing it. The Casey Novak reference is trivial and does not belong on the page as I explained in the editing notes like you asked me to. Not every fictional case involving Brady deserves to be listed under See Also. It is trivial information that doesn't add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.71.74 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Now develop a consensus, then it will be removed. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is the reference to a fictional character in a fiction-based television programme that starts with the words ""The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event," or, "Although inspired in part by a true incident, the following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event" being used in an important law article. It seems way out of place. I would vote to remove the reference. I've tagged the article to raise the visibility of the issue Stout256 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictional or non-fiction, it still shows how a person violated Brady. See Also, is an example section too, if you havent realised. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is a fictional character in a plot that refers to Brady v. Maryland. My real issue is that the reference does not fit in "See Also" section as it is used by other Supreme Court articles. For example, I took a look through all the important cases mentioned in Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. From my recollection of the show, at least every other "Law and Order" episode has has the defence moving to suppress evidence due to illegal searches, but none of the 4th amendment articles mentions any fictional examples. The only example I could find in my admittedly cursory search of "Law and Order" references in law articles is Bernhard Goetz, and that was placed in a "Cultural references" section to separate it from the legal examples. For consistency with other Wikipedia legal articles, I would suggest a compromise that places the "SUV" example in a a new section called "Cultural references". Stout256 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 03:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brady v. Maryland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202133948/http://govexposed.com/ to http://www.govexposed.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Murdered/charged with murdering

Reverting language in opening sentence of section to "murdered" rather than "were charged with murdering". The murder itself occurred on June 27, 1958. Brady was not arrested until some time later, so it is incorrect to say that he was charged on that date.

I saw Chess's explanation for the change: "clearing up that the two were charged with murder, as stating that Brady actually committed the murder is misleading". I understand the reasoning, but I disagree for a few reasons. Brady was convicted of first-degree murder, and that conviction was never overturned. It is true that he did not actually kill Brooks himself, but he was an accomplice, so it is appropriate to say that he and Boblit together committed the murder. The rest of the graf also clarifies that he was not the actual killer, so there's no risk of misunderstanding. Wallnot (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Brady list

Brady list redirects here but the phrase isn't used or defined anywhere in the article. Can a mention be added so readers who search for it find something useful? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've now added a mention. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Connick v. Thompson link trans flag thumbnail

why does the trans flag appear when I hover over the Connick v. Thompson link Smerdyakov911 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)