The jury was instructed that they could draw an unfavorable inference against the plaintiff from his failure to testify in denial of the evidence that tended to incriminate him.
Procedural History
None given.
Issues
Does interfering with a defendant's fifth amendment right to remain silent violate the 14th Amendment, either through the POIC or by depriving persons of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law?
Holding/Rule
Neither the POIC nor the due process clause can be used to apply the 5th Amendment to the states. However, the due process clause can be used to apply some amendments to the states; those that are "immutable principles of justice" that are the "inalienable possessions of every citizen of a free government."
Reasoning
Right to remain silent is central in American law.
Was even embodied in the common law prior to framing.
It is argued that this is a fundamental right of citizenship protected by the POIC.
However, The Slaughterhouse Cases has already determined the question in the negative.
The defendants also appeal to the due process clause for relief.
This requires separate consideration, because it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight amendments against national action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of tem would be a denial of due process of law.
If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.
The right against self-incrimination is not a fundamental principle of liberty and justice and does not inhere in free government. The due process clause does not apply.
Dissent
None.
Notes
Opened the door for the Supreme Court to apply provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
