Court Case Analysis: Malloy Vs Hogan

Introduction

William Malloy was arrested on September 11th, 1959, by the Hartford, Connecticut police at 600 Asylum Street due to a gambling raid. He was placed in jail for one year and fined $500 because he pleaded guilty to a criminal offense, pool selling. However, 90 days after Malloy was sentenced to jail, he was placed on probation for two years. Sixteen months after his plea, the Superior Court appointed a referee to order Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County.

Court Case Analysis: Malloy vs. Hogan

On January 16th, 1961, the state attorney asked Malloy several questions, which he refused to answer since an answer would tend to incriminate him. Then, on January 25th, 1961, Malloy was recalled as a witness and was again questioned. The questions he refused to answer on that day were identical to those he had been asked on his first appearance before the referee. This led to him being placed in prison until he was willing to answer the questions.

Does the 14th Amendment protect a state witness’s 5th Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding? The argument made by the petitioner party was that the 5th Amendment grants individuals the right to protect themselves from self-incrimination; they have the right to remain silent. The Fourteenth Amendment grants individuals the right to due process of the law and equal protection of the laws. The court agreed that they couldn’t force Malloy to testify about other gambling activities. The state attorney argued to Malloy that the questions pertained to a matter on which he had already been convicted, so there could be no incrimination. The referee felt that self-incrimination was not involved. The argument made by the opposition party was that the U.S. Supreme Court considered a previous case while deciding the results of the Malloy case (Twining v. New Jersey), which was decided in 1908. In that case, the court held that individuals have fundamental rights applying to the states under the 14th Amendment, but the right against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment did not apply to the states at that time.

Malloy failed to explain how his answer would incriminate him. This negates his claim to protection of the privilege under state law. In a 5 to 4 decision for Malloy, the court held that the 5th Amendment’s exemption from self-incrimination is protected by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by a state. Considering that the U.S. judicial system is accusatorial, the court ruled that the 14th Amendment secures the accused against self-incrimination. This meant that he has the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the restricted exercise of his own will and shall not suffer any penalty. This case and its decision are significant because they determine how people in circumstances similar to Malloy’s will be treated in the future.

Conclusion

If an authority doesn’t inform people that they have the right to remain silent, making them talk, they’re effectively making them witnesses against themselves, which is an illegal act. I agree that Malloy won the case. I agree because the 5th Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. Additionally, the Freedom of Speech can also protect Malloy because it gives him the right to speak freely or not at all. The Freedom of Speech and the 5th Amendment work in tandem to protect him from self-incrimination.

References

• Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).
• Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).