State of Minnesota v. Clark
Minnesota Supreme Court
738 N.W.2d 316 (2007)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Courtney Clark (plaintiff) was under investigation for murder. The police interviewed Clark three times, once before arraignment and twice afterwards. The first interview was on July 26, before Clark’s arraignment and before he had been appointed an attorney. After the interview, Clark was arraigned and appointed a public defender, Tom Handley. Later that day, Clark asked to speak to the police, and the police interviewed Clark a second time. According to police testimony, the public defender’s office was aware that the police were going to interview Clark. Several times after July 26, the prosecutor, Charles Balck (defendant) stopped the police from interviewing Clark without Handley present and attempted to contact Handley to arrange an interview in Handley’s presence. On August 3, Clark asked again to speak to the police. Balck left a message for Handley, stating that Clark wanted to speak to the police and the police were going to interview Clark. The police then interviewed Clark without Handley present. At trial, Clark moved to suppress the statements he made after his arraignment on July 26 and on August 3, and the court overruled the motion. Clark was convicted, and he appealed, arguing that Balck violated Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 (MRPC 4.2) and as a result, Clark’s motion to suppress should have been granted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.