Talk:Legal technicality

message: It should be noted that legal technicalities, while helping defendants, often hinder the unjustly imprisoned. The importance of legal technicalities is that they tend to preserve the status quo - ie defendant is acquitted and convicted stay in jail.
The ultimate in legal technicality has to be Justice Sandra O'Connors statement that "innocence is not a constitutional bar to execution."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Badtypist (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 February 2006
:Where in the world did you get that statement from?  It sounds like you completely misread her concurrence in Herrera v. Collins (1993)  (which I remembered vaguely from Crim Pro class in law school).  O'Connor was not focusing on the law like Rehnquist in his majority opinion; she was focused on showing that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Herrera was guilty.  O'Connor wrote at page 421 that "The record makes it abundantly clear that petitioner is not somehow the future victim of simple murder . . . but instead himself [is] the established perpetrator of two brutal and tragic ones."  --Coolcaesar 07:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

message: The following introductory sentence, and also some other aspects of this article, will need to be replaced with something more specific, objective and informative...Kenosis 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The term legal technicality refers to the technical niceties and exactitudes of legal procedure, which is divided into criminal procedure and civil procedure. The term technicality is actually not a term of art in the law (fish describing water) and is rarely used by lawyers, unless they are trying to explain legal procedure to lay clients."...18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this paragraph has been removed.  Comments/reasons: "technical niceties"? is not a definition but a redundant phrasing of "legal technicalities." "Fish describing water" what on earth does that mean? The statements "rarely used by lawyers" and "unless they are trying to explain legal procedure to lay clients" are unsourced and speculative.... Kenosis 02:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags placed in May 2006

message: To illustrate that the words "legal technicality have no definition ofter than that of their face value ("technicalities in law" or "technicalities of law"), the U.S. Supreme Court's use of the informal phrase "legal technicalities" over the last century (13 times minus two duplicates and one quote from a newspaper = 10 times) are as follows. All of them are used in a casual, non-definitional way to refer to the idea of merely "complexities or technical aspects of the law"... Kenosis 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last use is the kicker here, as it is a quote from a newspaper.  All these uses of legal technicalities by the Supreme Court refer to only one thing, which is in informal reference to "technicalities of the law” or “anything in the law that is highly technical” including substantive law, procedural law--everything technical.  That is properly the subject of the article on law, and not the subject of a separate article on legal technicalities I would think.  ... Kenosis 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of actual legal usage of the informal phrase "legal technicality"

message: The link to the German entry for "Rechtsförmlichkeit" or "Legistik" is wrong. The German entry describes the art of writing laws, how they have to be structured, etc. It does not describe "Legal technicyalities". Ds77 (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to German entry