Twining v. New Jersey case brief

Twining v. New Jersey case brief summary

211 U.S. 78 (1908)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appeal from the New Jersey Supreme Court, which found that jury instructions commenting on the defendants' failure to testify after they had been accused of a crime was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitutional amendment XIV.

CASE FACTS
Defendants sought review of appellate court's decision, which found the trial court's comments to the jury about defendants' failure to testify after they had been accused of a crime was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitutional amendment XIV.

DISCUSSION

• The court affirmed and held privilege against self-incrimination was not guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitutional amendment XIV, against impairment by the states. 
• Exemption from self-incrimination was not part of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. 
• None of the other personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments had been considered privileges and immunities. 
• The exemption from self-incrimination was not protected from state action by notions of due process. 
• Examination of the Court's past cases concerning due process and history of the states in adopting their constitutions led the Court to decide exemption from self-incrimination was not included in conception of due process.

CONCLUSION

Court affirmed lower court's decision, upholding lower court's use of jury instructions commenting on defendants' failure to testify because exemption from self-incrimination was not a privilege and immunity and was not part of concept of due process and thus could be abridged by the states.

***

Twining v. NJ (1908) (an early standard of the Supreme Court's Incorporation Doctrine by establishing that while certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might apply to the states under the 14th amendment's due process clause, the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination is not so incorporated)

Background: 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 to testify, and the men were convicted. They appealed, arguing that the instructions to the jury violated their 5th Amendment privilege to not incriminate themselves.

 

Issue: Considering both the P or I Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Am: "The general question, therefore, is whether such a law violates the 14th Am. either by abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S. or by depriving persons of their life, liberty or property without due process of law."

 

Holding: SCOTUS used the case to decide if the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination was valid during trials by state courts and not just federal courts. Before the adoption of the 14th Am., the Bill of Rights (including the 5th Am.) did not apply to state courts. The Court did not reach the question of whether the defendants' Fifth Am. rights were actually violated in the original trial.

·         The language in the 14th 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. Slaughter-house cases.

·         The rights to not self-incriminate applied only to federal court cases.

 

Notes: Twining was the 1^st time the Ct. held that provisions of the Bill of Rights could be applied to the States if the provisions were incorporated in the DPC of the 14^th Am. à Debate centers on what rights are necessary for due process, and are therefore incorporated into the DPC and applicable to the states, and which are not.