Are you an EPFL student looking for a semester project?
Work with us on data science and visualisation projects, and deploy your project as an app on top of Graph Search.
Concept
Palko v. Connecticut
Summary
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.
Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for the majority, explained that some Constitutional protections that would apply against the federal government would not be incorporated to apply against the states unless the guarantee was "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty". Incorporation of the Bill of Rights was selective, not a general rule, and in this case the Court declined to incorporate the protection from double jeopardy against the states, even though the protection would most certainly have been upheld against the federal government.
In 1935, Frank Palko, 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 and killed two police officers and made his escape. He was captured a month later.
Palko 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. Palko then 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 Palko held that since the infringed right fell under a due process protection, Connecticut still acted in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In an opinion by Justice Benjamin Cardozo, the Court held that the Due Process Clause protected only those rights that were "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" and that the court should therefore incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states gradually, as justiciable violations arose, based on whether the infringed right met that test.
Official source
About this result
This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.