Talk:Anders v. California

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.

Some proper citations needed[edit]

Another editor has added some material without proper citations. I have left the material in, but this needs more work. Also, some of the material may be considered prohibited original research. Famspear (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Citations in the form "2009-Ohio-3199" and "2007-Ohio-187" are not proper legal citations.

Also, the quotations added to the article seem pretty dubious. What is the source for the quotations? Anders' attorney walked out of a jury trial and left his client to the mercy of jury? Who says so? Famspear (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I may have to correct myself. For example, I found "2007-Ohio-187" at the Google Advanced Scholar web site. I'm not familiar with this form of citation (or I wasn't until now). Famspear (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have corrected some of the citations; it may not be Bluebook, but it's a start. Famspear (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I have moved this material from the article to here:

In that case, defendant Anders’ attorney defeated his client with his opening statement: “Ladies and gentlemen, after carefully reviewing all the evidence in this case, I’ve concluded that my client has no meritorious defenses. There are a couple of arguments I possibly could make, but they’d be frivolous. I’ll mention them to you, and if my client wants to argue them further, that’s up to him. You give them whatever consideration you deem appropriate.”^{[citation needed]} Following his statement, the attorney then left the courtroom and his client to the mercy of the jury.^{[citation needed]} The attorney case had simply filed a letter with the court stating that there was no merit to the appeal, did not file a motion to withdraw, and did nothing to distinguish any redeemable claims that his client may have had.

This material is highly suspect. And the Anders case involved the failure of an attorney to do something on appeal, not a trial. There is no "jury" when a case is presented to a court of appeals. Famspear (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some argument that the holding by the Supreme Court was based on the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Sixth Amendment, but I'll leave the article as is (for now) on that point. Famspear (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to citation forms, "2007-Ohio-187" standing alone is not a proper legal citation. That is, it is not a complete citation. A citation to a court decision should provide enough information so that the reader can see the court in which the decision was rendered and the date (at least the year) of the decision. The article has been corrected accordingly. Famspear (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anders v. California. 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/20080518102322/http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/233/warnfram.html to http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/233/warnfram.html

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) 18:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]