Talk:Maryland v. Craig

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I don't want to start an edit war over something so minor as proper citation, but the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, as an entity, is abbreviated as you have done, sic "Md. Ct. Spec. App.", HOWEVER, the citation to the Maryland Appellate Reports is "Md. App.". As the info block is obviously a citation to the reporter in which the case can be found, the proper Bluebook format is "Vol Md. App. Page". Please see T.1 (p. 207) of the 17th edition of the Bluebook. Caelarch 23:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're mistaken, because that's not a Maryland Appellate Reports citation (which is 76 Md. App. 250, btw) in the infobox, so that's not the abbreviation we're trying for. The citation that is given in the infobox is 544 A.2d 784 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1988), where "Md. Ct. Spec. App." within the parenthetical does refer to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals as the issuing court, and A.2d is the reporter for the citation used. Postdlf 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O, damn. You're absolutly right. Egg on my face. My apologies.Caelarch 00:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State courts[edit]

"Many states subsequently declined to follow Craig's reasoning when applying their own comparable constitutional provisions." I thought state courts were bound to follow the 6tyh Amendment and the US Supreme Court? Can someone who knows more about this explain it in the article? Richard75 19:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 6th amendment is a right granted to defendants to confront (not a right to protect a witness). This case sets a minimum that states must follow, states can grant additional rights beyond the minimum that is set by the federal constituion. Thus some states require that a witness must be within the same room and in view of the defendant when offering testimoney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.251.2 (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]