| 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 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 150 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 | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren, Black, Goldberg, Douglas |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Clark |
| Dissent | White, joined by Stewart |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Twining v. New Jersey, Adamson v. California | |
Abrogated by | |
| Arizona v. Fulminante | |
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).
Background[edit]
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.
Question[edit]
Is a state witness's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision[edit]
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 also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ "Malloy v. Hogan - 378 U.S. 1 (1964)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved November 25, 2013.
- ^ "Malloy v. Hogan - 378 U.S. 1 (1964)". Justia: US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved November 25, 2013.
Further reading[edit]
- 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 links[edit]
- Text of Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)