World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Malloy v. Hogan

 

Malloy v. Hogan

Malloy v. Hogan
Argued March 5, 1964
Decided June 15, 1964
Full case name Malloy v. Hogan, Sheriff
Citations 378 U.S. 1 (more)
387 U.S. 1
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
5th Amendment, 14th Amendment

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States deemed a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts. 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 by Malloy was later abrogated by Arizona v. Fulminante (1991).

Background

Malloy, a petitioner, was sentenced to a year in jail for unlawful gambling. After 3 months he was released from jail and put on probation for two years. While he was on probation, he was asked to testify to a state inquiry into gambling and other criminal activities that Malloy was involved in. He refused to answer these questions because it could have incriminated him. The court put him back in jail until he testified.

Question before the Court

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

Decision of the Supreme Court

In a 5 to 4 decision, Justice Brennan wrote the majority of the court in support of William 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

References

  1. ^
  2. ^

Further reading

External links

  • Full text opinion from Findlaw.com.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.