This article needs attention from an expert in Law.February 2015)(
|Malloy v. Hogan|
|Argued March 5, 1964|
Decided June 15, 1964
|Full case name||Malloy v. Hogan, Sheriff|
|Citations||378 U.S. 1 (more)|
84 S. Ct. 1489; 12 L. Ed. 2d 653
|Prior||150 Conn. 220, 187 A.2d 744 (1963)|
|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.|
|Majority||Brennan, joined by Warren, Black, Goldberg, Douglas|
|Dissent||Harlan, joined by Clark|
|Dissent||White, joined by Stewart|
|U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV|
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
|Twining v. New Jersey (1908)|
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.
The test for voluntariness used in the Malloy decision was later abrogated by Arizona v. Fulminante (1991).
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.
Is a state witness's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
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."