Talk:Henry Wade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

"Wade never lost a case" is a very sweeping statement - is there a source on that? Let me expound a bit on the problems with the statement:

• As a prosecutor, it's very easy to stretch that claim - for instance, if you indict a defendant for murder and littering and the jury convicts him only of littering, that could be a "win".
• Elected DA's in large jurisdictions rarely try cases themselves - administrative duties take up large amounts of their time. Thus, as DA, Wade may not have a long track record of trials (or maybe he did, but it would be nice to know.)
• Conversely, in appeal cases, it is routine practice for the DA to always be (at least nominally) the lead counsel although usually the work of writing the briefs is done by his assitants. Does the statement suggest that the Dallas DA's office had never had a conviction reversed while Wade was serving there? That would be truly remarkable.
• In another sense, Wade didn't actually "lose" the case as a prosecuting attorney - he was the named defendant in a civil suit, and most of the work of briefing and arguing was done by the Texas Attorney General's office.

Since this article is a stub, obviously what is needed is some work by someone more familar with Wade's career. Ellsworth 19:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Never lost"

I haven't checked this comment for accuracy yet. The writer of the original stub might have meant that Wade never lost any of the cases he tried personally. That would actually not be all that implausible. The typical D.A.'s office wins the overwhelming majority of the cases taken to trial, and it's hard to imagine that the conservative, law-and-order minded Dallas County of the 1950s and 1960s would have been any sort of exception.

[edit] Article full of BS

This article is full of B.S. It really is, and I can't believe anyone actually typed it up, at least for the last section on Roe v. Wade. Here's why:

1. Henry Wade NEVER personally took part in Roe v. Wade. He did no actual work on the case on behalf of ANYONE; nothing! He was merely sued by Norma McCorvey, and all other subsequent legal work took place without him. He never even personally responded to the lawsuit. For the first phase of the trial, the work was done by a subordinate of his. During the second part, the state of Texas took over.

2. Wade never respresented the state of Texas, only his district. Big difference.

3. Norma McCorvey was NEVER charged with anything anywhere in Texas relating to abortion. There was no criminal offense penalizing getting an abortion, but providing one certainly was. This very point was central to Roe v. Wade, that there was nothing criminalising what she did.

4. Wade DID lose at least once, even if you consider Roe v. Wade to be his loss. His office lost, just as an example, one time because it neglected to file an answer (a response to a lawsuit) on time, which cost the DA's office $50, 000.

5. Regardless of who lost or won Roe v. Wade, the loser certainly wasn't Henry Wade, because he was never even present when the case was heard before the United States Supreme Court. He wasn't even present in the initial lawsuit in federal court.

6. The article says Wade was never blamed for the Roe v. Wade loss, but how could anyone blame him, when, if anyone, the Attorney's General office should be blamed? It was the office that stood before the Supreme Court in the first argument, and the re-argument. If someone is to blame, surely it's not someone who never even voiced a word.

Stiles 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)