Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Issue: D argued he would be placed in double jeopardy if tried again on the same offense under the 5th Amendment.
Holding: Jury returned verdict of first degree murder, D sentenced to death. SC affirmed conviction for first degree murder and rejected the incorporation doctrine—the court said this was not double jeopardy and trying him twice did not violate the norms of due process. Ct looked at it from the perspective of whether it was fundamentally unfair for CT to have laws different from other states and ultimately ruled that it is not. This case embodies case about due process, and whether it violates the norms of “ordered liberty” for CT to have this law. The court does not use double jeopardy language, rather it looks at it as if the 14th A. was its own sphere.
This case is the beginning of 14th A. limitation and using the DP clause to change state power. Palko essentially starts a process of litigation which changes the legal landscape in this country. Asks if DP clause should be the vehicle to constrain local and state actors from interfering w/the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights.
Facts: Jury found D guilty of second degree murder, however, jury wrongly instructed as to the difference between first and second degree murder. State said if proper instructions had been given, he would have been properly convicted of first degree murder.
Issue: D argued he would be placed in double jeopardy if tried again on the same offense under the 5th Amendment.
Holding: Jury returned verdict of first degree murder, D sentenced to death. SC affirmed conviction for first degree murder and rejected the incorporation doctrine—the court said this was not double jeopardy and trying him twice did not violate the norms of due process. Ct looked at it from the perspective of whether it was fundamentally unfair for CT to have laws different from other states and ultimately ruled that it is not. This case embodies case about due process, and whether it violates the norms of “ordered liberty” for CT to have this law. The court does not use double jeopardy language, rather it looks at it as if the 14th A. was its own sphere.
This case is the beginning of 14th A. limitation and using the DP clause to change state power. Palko essentially starts a process of litigation which changes the legal landscape in this country. Asks if DP clause should be the vehicle to constrain local and state actors from interfering w/the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment