The US Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of a California law that allows comment on a defendant's failure to testify. The appellant argued that this violates due process and the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. However, the court ruled that a state has the authority to allow such comment, as long as it does not imply guilt solely from the defendant's silence. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, but states are free to abridge the privileges and immunities flowing from state citizenship within the limits of the due process clause. The conclusion of the Supreme Court of California will not be interfered with.

The passage argues that jurors should be allowed to draw inferences from a defendant's silence during trial. Despite the protection against self-incrimination provided by the Fifth Amendment, this immunity only applies to the federal government and is not required by the Fourteenth Amendment for the states. Additionally, the Privileges or Immunities Clause could be misused if not properly limited by past decisions. The central issue is whether a defendant with a vulnerable record should take the stand and risk their credibility being challenged, or remain silent and risk being seen as guilty.

The Supreme Court upheld a California statute allowing prosecutors to infer guilt from a defendant's failure to testify, despite the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination in federal courts. The decision was based on the Twining v. New Jersey case, which allowed states to obtain evidence from individuals accused of a crime despite the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the author of the opinion disagrees with the Twining decision and believes that it undermines the constitutional safeguards of the Bill of Rights and grants the Court an excessive amount of power. The dissenting judge argues that the Court's use of the "natural law" formula to reach its conclusion in this case violates the Constitution by giving courts ultimate power over public policies in areas where the Constitution does not limit legislative power. The Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the meaning of "due process" and reduced the effectiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection from state infringement of individual liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Twining decision consolidated the power of the Court to invalidate state and federal regulatory legislation by rejecting the compelled testimony clause of the Fifth Amendment and all the Bill of Rights.

Justice Murphy dissented from the majority opinion and agreed with Justice Black that the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. However, he believed that the Fourteenth Amendment was not limited by the Bill of Rights and that there may be occasions where a lack of due process warrants constitutional condemnation despite the absence of a specific provision in the Bill of Rights. Justice Murphy also believed that the defendant's right against self-incrimination was violated under California law because the judge or prosecutor could comment on the defendant's failure to explain or deny evidence, which compelled the defendant to be a witness against himself. He argued that the constitutional guarantee of freedom from self-incrimination is a fundamental principle that must be respected, even if there are arguments for and against allowing comment on the failure of the accused to testify. Therefore, the judgment below should be reversed.