William Malloy was arrested on September 11, 1959 by Hartford Connecticut police at 600 Asylum Street in connection with a gambling raid. He was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of $500 because he pleaded guilty to a criminal offense of selling a pool. However, 90 days after Malloy was sentenced to prison, he was placed on probation for two years. 16 months after his plea, the Superior Court appointed the arbitrator to order Malloy to prove he was dealing in gambling and other criminal activity in Harford County. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay On January 16, 1961, the State's Attorney asked Malloy several questions which he refused to answer because an answer would tend to incriminate him. Then, on January 25, 1961, Malloy was called back as a witness and questioned again. The questions he refused to answer that day were identical to those asked of him during his first appearance before the arbitrator. this led to him being placed in jail until he was willing to answer questions. Does the 14th Amendment protect a prosecution witness's 5th Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding? The argument made by the petitioning party was that the 5th Amendment grants individuals the right to protect themselves against self-incrimination. They have the right to remain silent. The Fourteenth Amendment grants individuals the right to due process and equal protection of the laws. The court agreed that it could not force Malliy to testify about other gambling activities. The state's attorney told Malloy that the questions related to a case for which he had already been convicted and that he there could be no incrimination. The referee ruled that there was no self-incrimination. The argument made by the opposing party was that the United States Supreme Court had considered a previous case before ruling on the results of the Malloy case. (twining v. new jersey) which was decided in 1908. In this case, the court ruled that individuals have fundamental rights applying to the states under the 14th Amendment, but the right not to self- criminalization under the 5th Amendment did not apply to the states. declared at that time. Malloy did not explain how his response would incriminate him. This negates his claim to privilege protection under state law. 5-4 decision for Malloy. The court held that the 5th Amendment's exemption from self-incrimination is protected by the 14th Amendment against restriction by any state. Considering that the American justice system is adversarial, the court ruled that the 14th Amendment protects the accused against self-incrimination. This meant that he had the right to remain silent unless he chose to speak in the restricted exercise of his own will and that he would face no punishment. This case and its decision are important because they determine which Malloy people in similar circumstances will be treated. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay If an authority does not tell people that they have the right to remain silent, make them speak, they are witnessing themselves, which is an illegal act. I agree that Malloy won the case. I agree because the 5th Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. Free speech can also protect Malloy because it gives him the right to express himself freely. Freedom.