State v. Archer
Supreme Court of Iowa
1DissentWennerstrum, J.
(dissenting) — I cannot concur in the majority opinion as I do not believe the confessions were inadmissible as a matter of law or that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Nor do I find support in the record for the harsh terms — “inquisition”, “inquisitioners”, “badgering”, “sweating”, and a “second platoon”- — indulged in by the majority. It was, I think, for the jury to determine whether there was any undue pressure put upon defendant in obtaining his confessions.
I. The majority holds the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions were violated in…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- McNabb v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- State v. HoferSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
- State v. RutledgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1951
- State v. BensonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
- State v. WestcottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.