''Twining v. New Jersey'', 211 U.S. 78 (1908), was a case of the

U.S. Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

. In this case, the Court established the

Incorporation Doctrine In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the ...

by concluding that while certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Fifth Amendment's right against

self-incrimination In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another ersonin a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof". (Self-incrimination ...

is not incorporated. The ''Twining'' decision was overturned by the decision in '' Malloy v. Hogan'' in 1964, in which the Court incorporated the right against self-incrimination.

Background

The case involved two men charged with fraud in

New Jersey New Jersey is a state in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States. It is bordered on the north and east by the state of New York; on the east, southeast, and south by the Atlantic Ocean; on the west by the Delaware ...

who claimed Fifth Amendment protection and refused to testify during their trial. The jury was told of the men's refusal to testify, and they were convicted. They appealed, arguing that the instructions to the jury violated their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Majority decision

The Supreme Court used the case to decide whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was valid during trials in state courts, not just in federal courts. Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the

Bill of Rights A bill of rights, sometimes called a declaration of rights or a charter of rights, is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country. The purpose is to protect those rights against infringement from public officials and pr ...

, including the Fifth Amendment, did not apply to state courts. The Court did not reach the question of whether the defendants' Fifth Amendment rights were actually violated in the original trial. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice

William Henry Moody William Henry Moody (December 23, 1853 – July 2, 1917) was an American politician and jurist who held positions in all three branches of the Government of the United States. He represented parts of Essex County, Massachusetts in the Uni ...

. Justice

John Marshall Harlan John Marshall Harlan (June 1, 1833 – October 14, 1911) was an American lawyer and politician who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1877 until his death in 1911. He is often called "The Great Dissenter" due to his ...

was the lone dissenter. Moody considered both the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: "The general question, therefore, is whether such a law violates the Fourteenth Amendment 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."

Privileges or immunities

The court cited the decision in the ''

Slaughter-House Cases The ''Slaughter-House Cases'', 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision consolidating several cases that held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only pr ...

'' that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment ("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 decided 8-1 that the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination applied only to federal court cases.

Selective incorporation

The case provides an early explanation of the doctrine of selective incorporation: only a portion of the Bill of Rights is applied to the states by incorporation, under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause: The court concluded that exemption from self-incrimination was not necessary for a conception of due process.

Dissent

Justice Harlan was the lone dissenter, writing firstly that the Court should have decided whether the defendants' rights were actually violated before reaching the "question of vast moment, one of such transcendent importance" of whether the Fifth Amendment applied to state courts and if the Fifth Amendment applied to state courts by the Due Process Clause.

Aftermath

Upheld in 1947

The ''Twining'' decision was revisited and upheld in '' Adamson v. California'' (1947) in which the merits of ''Twining'' were of central consideration. Concurring with the majority, Justice Frankfurter wrote: However, Justice Hugo Black disagreed and attacked ''Twining'' for giving too much power to state courts. In his famous dissent to ''Adamson'', he wrote:

Overturned in 1964

''Twining'' was revisited once again and finally overturned in ''Malloy v. Hogan'' (1964). In that case, the Court incorporated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and applied it to state courts.

External links

* * {{caselaw source , case = ''Twining v. New Jersey'', {{ussc, 211, 78, 1908, el=no , findlaw =https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/211/78.html , justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/211/78/ , loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep211/usrep211078/usrep211078.pdf United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law Overruled United States Supreme Court decisions 1908 in United States case law