Clark Can't Decide
- Justice Clark both agreed and disagreed with the ruling of the court. Is that allowed? Remember, this Supreme Court case actually involves four separate cases. Justice Clark dissented in Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, and Westover v. United States (just like Harlan and White did), but concurred (agreed) with California v. Stewart.
- Clark keeps it short and sweet throughout this whole section. He begins by saying that the Supreme Court has gone a bit too far with their decision that there can be no interrogation if the suspect wants to remain silent.
- He believes this rule, plus the lawyer part, helps criminals at the expense of law enforcement.
- Next Clark says, similar to White, that interrogations and confessions have long been a part of the regular investigation process, and that now the Supreme Court is putting too many handcuffs on the justice system.
- Clark's last point is that we should follow a modified interrogation system. Let the suspect know about their rights, then continue the questioning. If the state can prove that the warning was given at some point, then any confession gained from the interrogation is voluntary and can be used.
- To conclude, Clark repeats his disagreement with the Court in Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, and Westover v. United States, which means that he votes to keep those cases' decisions as they originally were.
- In California v. Stewart, Clark says that the state needs to provide proof that warnings were given before questioning began, otherwise the case is affirmed.