- A short and sweet subsection here, doing just what a conclusion should. Harlan rejects the new requirements set by the Supreme Court, and has his own opinions about the actual cases involved in the ruling.
- Harlan says that in Miranda v. Arizona and Vignera v. New York, he would "affirm" (keep) the original decisions. Guilty as charged.
- In California v. Stewart, he'd call for a retrial because of some unfinished evidence gathering.
- And in the final case, Westover v. United States, Harlan says that there's no evidence of police coercion, so he'd again affirm the decision.
- Want a powerful one-liner to go out on? Check it out: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added" (HarlanDissent.IV.5).