Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Thomas v. Arizona — Opinion of the Court

The 20-hour interval between the time of the ropings and petitioner's oral confession was devoid of all coercive influences other than the sight of the victim's body. [8] No threats were made, no promises offered, no force used, and no intimation of mob action existent. Petitioner's own activity during the crucial 20 hours is eloquent rebuttal of the contention that he was a man dominated by fear. At the logical height of oppression, during the ropings themselves, petitioner stoutly denied the offense and attempted to put the police on the trail of Cooper.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Thomas v. Arizona — Opinion of the Court

Deplorable as these ropings are to the spirit of a civilized administration of justice, the undisputed facts before us do not show that petitioner's oral statement was a product of fear engendered by them. Arizona's determination that the written confessions were involuntary cannot control the separate constitutional inquiry posed by the character of the oral confession. And since ours is to be an independent resolution of the issue of coercion, the range of our inquiry is not limited to those factors which differentiate the oral from the written confessions.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Thomas v. Arizona — Opinion of the Court

The County Attorney first identified each man in the room, assured petitioner that no threats and no promises would be made, 'explained to him his rights,' and told him to tell the truth. No force was used or threatened against either prisoner. While petitioner's statement was never tendered in evidence at the trial, it was filed with the United States District Court in the habeas proceeding as proof of his composure on the very day of his arrest.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature