Palko v. Connecticut
302 U.S. 319, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 2888 (1937)

Facts

Appellant Palko was indicated in Connecticut for the crime of First Degree Murder. A jury found him guilty of murder in the Second Degree, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The state then, with permission of the Judge presiding at the trial, gave notice to the Supreme Court of Errors.

The Supreme Court of Errors reversed the judgement and ordered a new trial. It found that there had been three errors of law to the prejudice of the state. Pursuant to the court's order, the appellant was brought to trial again. The Appellant at several points argued that the effect of a new trial was to place him twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and in doing so, violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Appellant's objections were overruled, and the jury found him guilty of First Degree Murder, and sentenced him to Death. The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the decision, and the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the State Courts conviction.

Questions

Does the execution of the sentence deny the Appellant of his life without due process of law?

Does the Connecticut Statue permitting appeals in criminal cases to be taken by the state an infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Does the sentence deny the Appellant his privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States.

Holdings

The Court held that the execution of the Sentence does not deprive the Appellant his life without due process of law.

The Court held that the Connecticut Statue permitting appeals in criminal cases to be taken by the state was not an infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court held that the Sentence did not deny the Appellant his privileges and immunities as a citizen.

The Court held that only those provisions of the Bill of Rights that, without which, liberty or justice would not exist, were absorbed by the Bill of Rights.

Reasoning

The Appellant argued that anything that would be a violation of the first eight amendments would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that this was not the case. The court stated that only those rights upon which liberty depended were absorbed by the Bill of Rights.

The Court determined that the kind of Double Jeopardy that the Appellant was subjected to did not "violate those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions." The Court decided that the statue was acceptable because it allowed the state to seek a trial in which there were no errors of law that prejudiced the state's case, just as the defendant is allowed to seek a trial in which there are no errors of law that prejudice his case. The Court did not make a determination as to whether the state is permitted to try the accused over , or bring another case, after a trial in which there had been no error of law.