The matter went for oral debate before the US Supreme Court at 11: 02 am in Washington DC.
a) What argument by the attorney for Clarks seems to you to be the soundest, why?
Attorney David I. Goldberg representing Clark looks soundest when he claims that his client has been denied a fair trial, a constitutional right to his client. This is the right to confirm beyond rational doubt that Eric M. Clark deliberately and consciously killed the police officer by shooting him in line of duty. He claims that his client is mentally sick and therefore the crime could not have been intentional. His client according to attorney committed the crime as a result of mental illness. He puts that the expert (the psychiatrist) confirmed to the court that his client was mad hence the crime could not have been conscious. He addresses the relevancy of the mental illness.
b) What question asked by the court seemed to give Clark’s attorney the most difficulty, why?
The court had heard that Eric generally hated Martians and particularly policemen. The circumstances during the commission of the crime showed that the crime could have been intentional. Eric M. Clark was driving while playing loud music in his car to provoke the police officer in order to shoot him.
This seemed a difficulty question because the attorney could also see the motive of crime commission in that act.
c) What question asked by the attorney (s) for Arizona /US seems to you the most difficulty, and why?
The attorneys for Arizona wanted to know how the petitioner knew that his acts was wrong but fail to know nature of his act.
This was the most difficult until Justice Kennedy agrees with him. He tried to imagine of a theoretical case where it would make a difference but couldn’t come up with one.
d) What question asked by the court seemed to Arizona/US attorneys the most difficulty, why?
The court wanted to know whether under prong II of M’naghten, the attorney could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the submissions brought to the court by experts showing that Clark was insane were incomplete or unreliable.
This was also a difficulty question because expert’s examinations were very credible and could not be disapproved in any way.