Synopsis: Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) was the result of an investigation into alleged “ticket fixing”. The case initially involved five police officers and one civilian employee from different boroughs of New Jersey who were suspected of alleged “ticket fixing” and diverting funds to other programs. The state Attorney General ordered an investigation into the allegations and the five officers were convicted of conspiracy to obstruct the administration of the traffic laws. They appealed the court’s decision to the New Jersey State Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court citing that they were coerced and their statements were not given voluntarily due to the threat of losing their positions.
Facts of the case: Before being questioned about the allegations, each employee was advised of the following:
1. Anything he said could be used in a state criminal proceeding against him;
2. they had the privilege to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate; but
3. …show more content…
The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 384 U. S. 464-465, is "likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice." “We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning, and cannot be sustained as voluntary under our prior decisions” (Garrity v. New Jersey, (1967) pp 385 U. S.
Facts of the case: Before being questioned about the allegations, each employee was advised of the following:
1. Anything he said could be used in a state criminal proceeding against him;
2. they had the privilege to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate; but
3. …show more content…
The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 384 U. S. 464-465, is "likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice." “We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning, and cannot be sustained as voluntary under our prior decisions” (Garrity v. New Jersey, (1967) pp 385 U. S.