What was determined about evidence in the case of Garrity v. New Jersey?

In the case of Garrity v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of self-incrimination and the admissibility of evidence obtained from law enforcement officers under coercive circumstances. The court determined that if evidence is obtained through coercion, such as threats or promises that compel an individual to forgo their right against self-incrimination, it is not admissible in court.

The reasoning behind this ruling is rooted in the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from being forced to testify against themselves. In Garrity, the officers were compelled to answer questions under the threat of job loss, essentially removing their voluntary choice and creating an atmosphere of coercion. As such, any statements made or evidence derived from those statements cannot be used in a criminal prosecution against them, ensuring that due process rights are maintained and that individuals are not unfairly deprived of their rights under duress.

This foundational principle reinforces the importance of ensuring that evidence is obtained in a manner that respects individual rights, thus preserving the integrity of the judicial process.