William Malloy was arrested on September 11, 1959 by Hartford Connecticut police at 600 Asylum Street in connection with a gambling raid. He was put in prison for a year and fined $500 because he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge, pool selling. However, 90 days after his prison sentence, Malloy was placed on probation for two years. 16 months after his plea, the Superior Court directed the arbitrator to order Malloy to prove gambling and other criminal activity in Harford County. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay On January 16, 1961, the state 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 as a witness and questioned again. The questions he refused to answer that day were identical to those he had been asked the first time he appeared before the referee. this led to him being put in prison until he was willing to answer questions. Does the 14th Amendment protect a state witness's 5th Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination in a criminal case? The argument advanced by the petitioner is that the Fifth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to protect themselves from self-incrimination. They have the right to remain silent. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. The court agreed that they cannot force Malliy to testify about other gambling activities. The state's attorney told Malloy that the questions involved a matter for which he had already been convicted and that there could be no indictment. The arbitrator found that this was not self-incrimination. The opposition party argued that the U.S. Supreme Court considered a precedent case while deciding the results of the Malloy case. ( twining v. new jersey ) which was decided in 1908. In that case, the court ruled that individuals have fundamental rights that apply to states under the 14th Amendment, but the right against self-incrimination under the 5th amendment did not apply to states at that time. Malloy failed to explain how his answer 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 abridgement by a state. Considering that the US justice system is adversarial, the court ruled that the 14th Amendment protects the accused from self-incrimination. This means that he has the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the restricted exercise of his own will and will not suffer any punishment. This case and its decision are significant because they determine which people in similar circumstances will be treated by Malloy. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay If an authority does not say that people who have the right to remain silent, let them speak, to be witnesses for 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 speak freely. Free speech and the 5th Amendment would protect him from self-incrimination.