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

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

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

Malloy v. Hogan

No. 110

Argued March 5, 1964

Decided June 15, 1964

378 U.S. 1

Syllabus

Petitioner, who was on probation after pleading guilty to a gambling misdemeanor, was ordered to testify before a referee appointed by a state court to investigate gambling and other criminal activities. He refused to answer questions about the circumstances of his arrest and conviction on the ground that the answers might incriminate him. Adjudged in contempt and committed to prison until he answered, he filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, which the highest state court denied. It ruled that petitioner was protected against prosecution growing out of his replies to all but one question, and that, as to that question, his failure to explain how his answer would incriminate him negated his claim to the protection of the privilege under state law.

Held:

1. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state infringement of the privilege against self-incrimination, just as the Fifth Amendment prevents the Federal Government from denying the privilege. P. 378 U. S. 8.

2. In applying the privilege against self-incrimination, the same standards determine whether an accused's silence is justified regardless of whether it is a federal or state proceeding at which he is called to testify. P. 378 U. S. 11.

3. The privilege is available to a witness in a statutory inquiry as well as to a defendant in a criminal prosecution. P. 378 U. S. 11.

Page 378 U. S. 2

4. Petitioner's claim of privilege as to all the questions should have been upheld, since it was evident from the implication of each question, in the setting in which it was asked, that a response or an explanation why it could not be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure would result. Hoffman v. United States,341 U. S. 479, followed. Pp. 378 U. S. 11-14.

150 Conn. 220, 187 A.2d 744, reversed.

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.