Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Twining v. New Jersey

Supreme Court of the United States · 1908 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFourteenth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationPrivileges or ImmunitiesDue Processself-incriminationFourteenth Amendmentdue process

Facts

The trial court instructed the jury that it might draw an unfavorable inference against each defendant from his failure to testify when it was within his power to deny incriminating evidence. New Jersey law, as authoritatively declared by the state's highest court, permitted such an inference. The defendants argued that this impaired the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. They claimed protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause and Due Process Clause.

Issue

Does a state law permitting a jury to draw an unfavorable inference from a criminal defendant's failure to testify violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is protected against the States as a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States or as an element of due process of law?

Rule

The Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the States from abridging the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, because that privilege is neither a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause nor a fundamental element of due process of law. For purposes of procedural due process, the Court's decisions require at least jurisdiction, notice, and an opportunity to be heard, but do not require any particular form of state criminal procedure merely because it resembles protections listed in the first eight Amendments.

🔒

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 a burglary trial in Columbus, Ohio, state law permits the prosecutor to ask the jury to consider the defendant's failure to testify when the defendant could have denied key inculpatory evidence. Devon Pike does not take the stand, and the judge tells the jury it may draw an adverse inference from that silence.

If Devon argues on direct review that the Fourteenth Amendment itself forbids Ohio from using that rule because the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination binds the States, how should a court applying the majority's approach rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States protected against state abridgment, and it is not included in due process of law. Therefore, a state rule allowing an adverse inference from a defendant's silence is not forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment on that basis.