Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States deemed defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege not to be compelled to be witnesses against themselves was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts, overruling the decision in Twining v. New Jersey (1908). The majority decision holds that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the federal government to enforce the first eight amendments on state governments.

Malloy v. Hogan
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued March 5, 1964
Decided June 15, 1964
Full case nameMalloy v. Hogan, Sheriff
Citations378 U.S. 1 (more)
84 S. Ct. 1489; 12 L. Ed. 2d 653
Case history
Prior150 Conn. 220, 187 A.2d 744 (1963)
Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state infringement of the privilege against self-incrimination just as the Fifth Amendment prevents the federal government from denying the privilege. In applying the privilege against self-incrimination, the same standards determine whether an accused's silence is justified regardless of whether it is a federal or state proceeding at which he is called to testify.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Warren, Black, Goldberg, Douglas
ConcurrenceDouglas
DissentHarlan, joined by Clark
DissentWhite, joined by Stewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Twining v. New Jersey (1908)

The test for voluntariness used in the Malloy decision was later abrogated by Arizona v. Fulminante (1991).

BackgroundEdit

Malloy, a petitioner, was sentenced to a year in jail for unlawful gambling. After three months, he was released from jail and put on probation for two years and was asked to testify to a state inquiry into gambling and other criminal activities in which Malloy was involved.

He refused to answer the questions to avoid incriminating himself. The court put him back in jail until he testified.

QuestionEdit

Is a state witness's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?

DecisionEdit

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Brennan wrote the majority of the court in support of Malloy. The court noted that "the American judicial system is accusatorial, not inquisitorial" and the Fourteenth Amendment protects a witness against self-incrimination. Therefore, both state and federal officials must "establish guilt by evidence that is free and independent of a suspect's or witnesses' statements."[1][2]

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ "Malloy v. Hogan - 378 U.S. 1 (1964)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
  2. ^ "Malloy v. Hogan - 378 U.S. 1 (1964)". Justia: US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved 25 November 2013.

Further readingEdit

  • McLauchlan, William P. (1966). Malloy v. Hogan and the Application of a Principle of Justice. Madison: University of Wisconsin (M.A. thesis). OCLC 53790302.

External linksEdit