Twining v. New Jersey
Twining v. New Jersey is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of self-incrimination and the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The case arose when the judge instructed the jury to consider the defendant's refusal to testify as part of their deliberations, prompting Twining to argue that this instruction violated his Fifth Amendment right. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the judge's instruction with an 8-1 decision, indicating that states were not required to adhere to all the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Justice William H. Moody acknowledged the infringement on Twining's privilege against self-incrimination but cited precedent for the Court's decision. Dissenting Justice John M. Harlan II argued for the importance of this privilege as a fundamental aspect of justice and advocated for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. Although Harlan's view did not prevail at the time, the issues raised in Twining set the stage for future cases, culminating in the reversal of this decision in Malloy v. Hogan in 1964. The case remains a pivotal reference point in discussions about the rights of defendants and the scope of the Bill of Rights within state courts.
Twining v. New Jersey
Date: November 9, 1908
Citation: 211 U.S. 78
Issue: Immunity against self-incrimination
Significance: Reaffirming that the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment did not include all the principles in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to the states.
In a criminal trial, the trial judge instructed the jury that the defendant’s refusal to testify might be considered in reaching a verdict. Found guilty, Twining claimed that the judge’s instructions were a violation of his Fifth Amendment right. The Supreme Court, however, rejected Twining’s position by an 8-1 vote. Justice William H. Moody’s opinion emphasized that many precedents had held that the states were not obligated to follow all the requirements of the Bill of Rights. For the purposes of discussion, Moody acknowledged that the trial judge’s comments constituted an infringement on Twining’s privilege against self-incrimination. In dissent, John M. Harlan II argued that the privilege was a fundamental principle of the Anglo-American legal tradition, and he also spoke in favor of the full incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. Although subsequent Courts never accepted Harlan’s position on full incorporation, the Twining decision was finally reversed in Malloy v. Hogan (1964).
