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.