key term - Palko v Connecticut

Definition

Palko v Connecticut was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1937 that established the principle of selective incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling determined that certain rights, including the protection against double jeopardy, are fundamental to the concept of due process and should be applicable to the states. This case highlighted the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment in extending federal protections to individual rights at the state level.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Palko v Connecticut involved Frank Palko, who was charged with murder and initially convicted of second-degree murder but was retried and convicted of first-degree murder after a successful appeal by the state.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy is not a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus allowing states to retry individuals for serious crimes.
3. Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that only rights considered 'fundamental' would be incorporated against the states.
4. This case set a precedent for future cases involving selective incorporation and the expansion of civil liberties at the state level.
5. The decision was later overruled by Benton v Maryland in 1969, which fully incorporated double jeopardy protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Review Questions

• How did Palko v Connecticut influence the doctrine of selective incorporation?
  • Palko v Connecticut significantly influenced the doctrine of selective incorporation by illustrating how certain fundamental rights can be applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision underscored that not all rights in the Bill of Rights are automatically applicable to states; only those deemed essential to liberty and justice would be incorporated. This laid groundwork for future cases that would further clarify and expand protections for individual rights at the state level.
• Discuss how Palko v Connecticut addressed the concept of double jeopardy and its implications for state trials.
  • In Palko v Connecticut, the Supreme Court concluded that double jeopardy is not a fundamental right that must be applied to state trials under the Fourteenth Amendment. This meant that states could retry individuals for serious crimes after a conviction was overturned on appeal. The implications were significant, as it allowed for a broader interpretation of state power in criminal proceedings, potentially impacting defendants' rights and protections against repeated prosecutions.
• Evaluate how Palko v Connecticut fits into the broader narrative of civil liberties expansion in America during the 20th century.
  • Palko v Connecticut fits into the broader narrative of civil liberties expansion in America during the 20th century as it marked a critical point in the application of constitutional rights at the state level. While it initially limited protections against double jeopardy, it opened doors for future rulings that would incorporate more rights, ultimately leading to greater protection for individuals against state infringement. This evolution reflected societal shifts toward recognizing and enforcing civil liberties as fundamental elements of American democracy, paving the way for landmark cases that would further solidify individual rights.

Related terms

Selective Incorporation:

The legal doctrine that ensures that certain rights listed in the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Double Jeopardy:

A legal principle that prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same crime, which was a key issue in Palko v Connecticut.

Due Process Clause:

A constitutional guarantee found in the Fourteenth Amendment that protects individuals from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property.