Palko v. Connecticut | |
---|---|
Argued November 12, 1937 Decided December 6, 1937 |
|
Full case name | Palko v. State of Connecticut |
Citations | 302 U.S. 319 (more) |
Prior history | Appeal from the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut |
Holding | |
The Fifth Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the individual states. | |
Court membership | |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Cardozo, joined by McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Stone, Roberts, Black |
Dissent | Butler |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. V, U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Overruled by
|
|
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) |
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.
In 1935, Frank Palka (whose name was misspelled as Palko in Court documents), a Connecticut resident, broke into a local music store and stole a phonograph, proceeded to flee on foot, and, when cornered by law enforcement, shot one police officer and made his escape. He was captured a month later.
Palka had been charged with first-degree murder but was instead convicted of the lesser offense of second-degree murder and was 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. Palka appealed, arguing that the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court had previously held, in the Slaughterhouse cases, that the protections of the Bill of Rights should not be applied to the states under the Privileges or Immunities clause, but Palka held that since the infringed right fell under a due process protection, Connecticut still acted in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.