Palko v. Connecticut

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

Related Topics:
1937 - United States Supreme Court - Incorporation - Fifth Amendment - Double jeopardy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Frank Palko had been charged with first-degree murder but was instead convicted of the lesser offense of second-degree murder and given a sentence of life imprisonment. Prosecutors appealed per Connecticut law and won a new trial, in which Palko was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Palko appealed, arguing that the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Related Topics:
Murder - Connecticut - Death - Due Process Clause - Fourteenth Amendment

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Applying a subjective case-by-case approach, the Court disagreed and upheld Palko's conviction, arguing that only fundamental rights, those rights that are central to the concept of "ordered liberty", are protected under the Due Process Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Cardozo listed freedom of thought and speech as being chief among such rights.

Related Topics:
Cardozo - Freedom of thought and speech

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Court eventually reversed course and incorporated the protection against double jeopardy with its ruling in Benton v. Maryland (1969).

Related Topics:
Benton v. Maryland - 1969

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~