7/29/2019 Twining v. New Jersey

1/4

Twining v. New JerseyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation , search

Twining v. New Jersey

Supreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 1920, 1908Decided November 9, 1908

Full casename

Albert C. Twining and David C. Cornell, plaintiffs in error v. State of New Jersey

Citations211 U.S. 78 (more )211 U.S. 78

HoldingThe Fifth Amendment rights to not self incriminate

apply only to federal court cases.Court membership

Chief JusticeMelville Fuller

Associate JusticesJohn M. Harlan David J. Brewer Edward D. White Rufus W. PeckhamJoseph McKenna Oliver W. Holmes, Jr.William R. Day William H. Moody

Case opinions

MajorityMoody, joined by Fuller, Brewer, White,Peckham, McKenna, Holmes, Day

Dissent HarlanOverruled by

Malloy v. Hogan , 378 U.S. 1 (1964)

Twining v. New Jersey , 211 U.S. 78 (1908), presented an early standard of the Supreme Court'sIncorporation Doctrine by establishing that while certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rightsmight apply to the states under the 14th amendment's due process clause , the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination is not so incorporated. The court overturned this decision in

Malloy v. Hogan in 1964 by incorporating the right against self-incrimination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twining_v._New_Jersey#mw-headhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twining_v._New_Jersey#mw-headhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twining_v._New_Jersey#p-searchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/211/78/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/us/211/78/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_211http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Fullerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Josiah_Brewerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Douglass_Whitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Wheeler_Peckhamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McKennahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Dayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Moodyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malloy_v._Hoganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/378/1/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malloy_v._Hoganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twining_v._New_Jersey#p-searchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/211/78/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_211http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Fullerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Josiah_Brewerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Douglass_Whitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Wheeler_Peckhamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McKennahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Dayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Moodyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malloy_v._Hoganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/378/1/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malloy_v._Hoganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twining_v._New_Jersey#mw-head

7/29/2019 Twining v. New Jersey

2/4

Facts

The case involved two men charged with fraud in New Jersey who claimed 5th Amendment protection and refused to testify during their trial. The jury was told of the men's refusal totestify, and the men were convicted. They appealed, arguing that the instructions to the jury

violated their 5th Amendment privilege to not incriminate themselves.

Decision

The Supreme Court used the case to decide if the 5th Amendment right against self-incriminationwas valid during trials by state courts and not just federal courts. Before the adoption of the 14thAmendment , the Bill of Rights , including the 5th Amendment, did not apply to state courts. TheCourt did not reach the question of whether the defendants' Fifth Amendment rights wereactually violated in the original trial.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Moody . Justice Harlan was the lone dissenter.

Moody considers both the Privileges or Immunities clause and the Due Process clause of the14th amendment: "The general question, therefore, is whether such a law violates the FourteenthAmendment either by abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or

by depriving persons of their life, liberty or property without due process of law." (Twining v. New Jersey: 211 U.S. 78, 91).

Privileges or immunities

The court cited the decision in the Slaughter-house cases that the language in the 14thAmendment ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...") did not curtail state power. The Supreme Court

voted 8 to 1 that the 5th Amendment rights to not self incriminate applied only to federal courtcases.

Selective incorporation

This case provides an early explanation of the doctrine of selective incorporation , in which some but not all of the Bill of Rights is applied to the states by incorporating into the 14thAmendment's due process clause . In the opinion, Justice Moody writes:

"It is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be

a denial of due process of law. If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in thefirst eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in theconception of due process of law."

Twining v. New Jersey: 211 U.S. 78, 99 (1908)

The court concluded that exemption from self-incrimination was not necessary for a conceptionof due process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Moodyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-house_caseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_incorporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_incorporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_incorporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Moodyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Moodyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-house_caseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_incorporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Moody

7/29/2019 Twining v. New Jersey

3/4

Dissent

John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter, writing firstly that the Court should have decidedwhether the defendants' rights were actually violated before reaching the "question of vastmoment, one of such transcendent importance" of whether the Fifth Amendment applied to State

courts and if the Fifth Amendment applied to state courts through the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment.

Reconsideration

Upheld

The Twining decision was revisited and upheld in Adamson v. California (1947), in which themerits of Twining were of central consideration. Concurring with the majority, JusticeFrankfurter wrote

"The Twining case shows the judicial process at its best -- comprehensive briefs and powerfularguments on both sides, followed by long deliberation, resulting in an opinion by Mr. JusticeMoody which at once gained and has ever since retained recognition as one of the outstandingopinions in the history of the Court. After enjoying unquestioned prestige for forty years, theTwining case should not now be diluted, even unwittingly, either in its judicial philosophy or inits particulars."

Adamson v. California: 332 U.S. 46, 59-60 (1947)

However, Justice Hugo Black disagreed and attacked Twining for giving too much power to thecourts. In his famous dissent to Adamson , he wrote:

"I would not reaffirm the Twining decision. I think that decision and the "natural law" theory of the Constitution upon which it relies degrade the constitutional safeguards of the Bill of Rights,and simultaneously appropriate for this Court a broad power which we are not authorized by theConstitution to exercise."

Adamson v. California: 332 U.S. 46, 70 (1947)

Overturned

Twining was revisited once again and finally overturned in Malloy v. Hogan (1964), whichincorporated the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

Brief Fact Summary. New Jerseys law providing that a jury may draw anunfavorable inference from a criminal defendants failure to testify was challengedunder the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Certain provisions of the Bill of Rights may apply to the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamson_v._Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamson_v._Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Blackhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Blackhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamson_v._Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black

7/29/2019 Twining v. New Jersey

4/4