Twining and another guy were
on trial for fraud. They declined to testify in their defense.
The judge instructed the jury
that they could infer guilt because of the refusal to testify.
The Trial Court found Twining
guilty of fraud. He appealed.
Twining argued that the 5th
Amendment granted the privilege
against compelled self-incrimination.
The prosecutor argued that
the 5th Amendment only
applied to Federal law, and Federal trials. Not a State trial such as
this one.
The US Supreme Court upheld
the conviction.
The US Supreme Court found
that that the 14th Amendment did not incorporate the 5th Amendment into State law.
The Court based their
decision on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The court cited the
decision in the Slaughter-house cases (83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873)) that said 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.
The Court noted that the Due
Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment could theoretically be used to incorporate the Bill
of Rights into State law, but only
in cases where the right being infringed is "essential to a
fundamental scheme of ordered liberty."
In this case, they found
that the right against self-incrimination was not essential.
This decision was later
overturned on due process grounds
in Malloy v. Hogan (378 U.S. 1 (1964)).
