Connection lost
Server error
Malloy v. Hogan Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A witness, previously convicted of a gambling misdemeanor, was held in contempt for refusing to answer questions about the crime. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, finding his fear of future prosecution was too remote and speculative to justify invoking the privilege against self-incrimination.
Legal Significance: This case established the Connecticut standard for invoking the privilege against self-incrimination, requiring a “real and appreciable” danger of prosecution. It represents a key state-level interpretation of the privilege before the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Fifth Amendment against the states.
Malloy v. Hogan Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1959, William Malloy was convicted of the misdemeanor crime of pool selling. In 1961, he was subpoenaed to testify before a state referee conducting an inquiry into gambling and other crimes. During the inquiry, Malloy was asked several questions related to his 1959 arrest and conviction, including who had employed him, who paid for his lawyer and bail, and whether he knew a specific individual, John Bergoti. Malloy refused to answer, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination under both the Connecticut and U.S. Constitutions. At the time of the inquiry, the one-year statute of limitations for the misdemeanor offense for which he was convicted had expired. The state argued that his prior conviction and the expired statute of limitations provided him with immunity from further prosecution. When Malloy persisted in his refusal, the Superior Court held him in contempt and ordered him committed to jail until he answered. Malloy sought a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, claiming his confinement was illegal because his assertion of the privilege was valid.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the petitioner validly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination by refusing to answer questions related to a prior misdemeanor conviction for which the statute of limitations had expired, without providing any specific explanation of how his answers could create a real and appreciable danger of future prosecution?
No. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Malloy failed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the petitioner validly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination by refusing to answer questions related to a prior misdemeanor conviction for which the statute of limitations had expired, without providing any specific explanation of how his answers could create a real and appreciable danger of future prosecution?
Conclusion
This decision articulates a stringent, state-level standard for invoking the privilege against Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu
Legal Rule
A witness may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination only when there is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Connecticut reasoned that while the privilege against self-incrimination Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna a
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A witness claiming the privilege against self-incrimination must show a “real