Malloy v. Hogan

1964-06-15

Headline: Court applies the right to remain silent to state cases, stopping states from jailing witnesses who refuse to answer potentially incriminating questions and expanding protections for people in state inquiries.

Holding: The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to protect a person's Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves and that Connecticut wrongly jailed a witness who refused to answer potentially incriminating questions.

Real World Impact:

Bars states from imprisoning witnesses who refuse self-incriminating answers.
Requires state courts to apply the same federal standard for the privilege.
Extends the right to remain silent to witnesses in state inquiries.

Topics: right to remain silent, state criminal investigations, witness rights, due process

Summary

Background

A man arrested in a 1959 gambling raid pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was placed on probation. About 16 months later a state court referee questioned him in a broad inquiry into gambling. He refused to answer several questions saying they might incriminate him and was jailed for contempt after state courts rejected his claim that he could stay silent under the Federal Constitution.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the federal protection against being forced to incriminate yourself also limits state action through the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority answered yes, explaining that later cases about coerced confessions, searches, and the right to counsel showed the same protection must apply to the States. The Court applied the federal test from prior decisions: a witness may refuse to answer if it is evident from the question and the context that an answer could be dangerous or supply a link to criminal prosecution. The Justices found Connecticut erred in concluding the witness had not properly claimed the privilege.

Real world impact

The decision means people questioned in state inquiries and investigations have the same constitutional right to remain silent as in federal proceedings. States cannot imprison a witness simply to force answers that might incriminate them, and state judges must apply the same federal standard when deciding privilege claims. The protection covers witnesses as well as defendants.

Dissents or concurrances

Two dissenters warned this expands federal judicial power into state criminal practice and argued the Connecticut courts had already applied an adequate standard and should be respected.