Twining v. New Jersey

1908-11-09

Headline: Affirms New Jersey convictions and rules that the federal ban on forcing people to testify against themselves does not apply to states, allowing juries to draw negative inferences from a defendant’s silence.

Holding: The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to enforce the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled testimony, so New Jersey could allow juries to draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s silence.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to let juries draw negative inferences from a defendant’s silence.
Affirms New Jersey convictions based on that state-law practice.
Leaves self-incrimination protection largely to state law unless federally specified.

Topics: self-incrimination, due process, state criminal procedure, rights of criminal defendants, Fourteenth Amendment

Summary

Background

Two men were tried and convicted in New Jersey on criminal charges. At trial, jurors were told they could consider the defendants’ refusal to testify and draw an unfavorable inference from that silence. New Jersey courts had long allowed such jury inferences under state law, and the convictions were affirmed in the state courts before reaching this Court.

Reasoning

The Justices addressed whether the federal Constitution prevents states from allowing juries to infer guilt from a defendant’s silence. The majority reviewed history and earlier decisions, including the distinction between rights of national citizenship and rights protected by states. They concluded the privilege against compelled testimony is not guaranteed against states as a national “privilege or immunity,” and that it is not so fundamental to the idea of due process that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to enforce the federal rule.

Real world impact

Because the Court held the federal protection did not bind the States, New Jersey’s rule survived and the convictions were affirmed. The decision leaves it to state law and state courts to decide whether and how to protect defendants from forced testimonial inferences. The ruling therefore allows states to permit juries to consider silence unless state law says otherwise.

Dissents or concurrances

A strong dissent argued the opposite: the right against self-incrimination is fundamental and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court should have first decided whether the record actually violated that right.