Malloy v. Hogan

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Criminal Procedure

378 U.S. 1 (1964)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureSelf-IncriminationIncorporationFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentstate proceedingswitness privilegeHoffman standard

Facts

Petitioner was arrested in a 1959 gambling raid in Hartford, pleaded guilty to pool selling, and received a one-year jail sentence, partially suspended, plus probation. About 16 months later, he was ordered to testify before a referee appointed by the Superior Court of Hartford County in an inquiry into alleged gambling and other criminal activities. He refused to answer several questions about the circumstances surrounding his arrest and conviction, invoking the ground that his answers might incriminate him. The Superior Court held him in contempt and committed him to prison until he agreed to answer.

Issue

Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect a witness in a state proceeding with the same Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination recognized in federal proceedings? If so, did petitioner properly invoke that privilege when he refused to answer the questions asked in the Connecticut inquiry?

Rule

The Fourteenth Amendment secures against state invasion the same privilege against compulsory self-incrimination that the Fifth Amendment guarantees against federal infringement. The same federal standards govern whether a claim of privilege is justified in state and federal proceedings: the privilege covers answers that would themselves support a conviction and those that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute, and it should be denied only when it is perfectly clear from all the circumstances that the witness is mistaken and the answer cannot possibly tend to incriminate.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, a state legislative corruption commission subpoenas Lena Ortiz, a bookkeeping clerk, to testify about payments she handled for a county contractor. When Lena refuses to answer on the ground that her answers may incriminate her, the commission chair says the Fifth Amendment restricts only federal proceedings and orders her jailed for contempt until she answers.

If Lena seeks relief in court, which is the strongest argument against the contempt order?

Explanation. The controlling doctrine is that the Fourteenth Amendment secures against the States the same privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment against the federal government. A state may not imprison a witness to compel answers that may incriminate her. The privilege is not limited to federal proceedings, and it is not limited to defendants at trial.