Talk:Vasquez v. Hillery

Law Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Comment The first paragraph is unclear: "Hillery pleaded he was innocent, but he was indicted of the crime either way in California. " I suppose this means "anyway" not "either way", but why should that be unusual? The normal statement In any case, I think normally first one has to be indicted before one can plead. The sentence should be "Hillery claimed innocence, but was indicted of the crime by the grand jury" (It's necessary to mention "grand jury", because the composition of the grand jury is the basis of the appeal.

similarly, "the defendant was singled out for murder due to his criminal past and race." must mean, that the defendent was singled out for prosection for murder... " similarly "The Supreme Court accepted the petitioner's appeal due to suspicion of unlawful detention from Hillery's previous petitions in court. " I can not decipher " Afterwards they took into account the precedence because of the stare decisis doctrine, which judges are to not differ with previous decisions" Does this mean, they considered the case in accordance with the precedent set by previous decisions under the doctrine that ... " or "The decision was to be used as precedent subsequently, because ..." (actually, both are correct.)

And, skipping over similar ambiguities to the end, "Only Justice O'Connor concurred with the majority opinion." makes no sense. It must mean that only O'Connor wrote a separate concurring opinion."

And more generally, the intro says the Court did not hold the grand jury discrimination was reviewable. The para on the majority opinion says it held that it was. Actually, in reading the very clear syllabus of the case at [1] shows that the court did in fact hold that racial discrimination at the grandjury stage was cause for reversal; the SC affirmed the opinion to that effect of the District and Appeal courts.

The tone is wrong also, for example " all fingers pointed to Booker T. Hillery" is not encyclopedic writing.

I am therefore adding tags for "confusing," and "tone" to the article". I don't think the author understood the case.

since this is a course assignment, I call it to the attention of the instructor. I could rewrite it, but perhaps the instructor or campus ambassador will feel it is their responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts, Amherst supported by WikiProject Politics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer showing on California DOC site[edit]

I looked on the DOC website inmate search, but he's no longer listed. I'm unable to find anything as to why.Skycloud86 (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]