Palko V. Connecticut (1937)
Chief Justice: Hughes court (1937-1938)
Issue/Topic
Double jeopardy and capitol punishment 5th amendment
II. Background and Facts of the Case
Frank Palko was charged with first degree murder after he killed two police officers wile fleeing
the scene of a robbery. He was convicted of 2nd degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
However the state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial and this time the court convicted
him of 1st degree murder and he was sentenced to death. He felt as though that this went against
his 5th amendment right of double jeopardy.
III. The Issue for the Court
Does Palko's second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the
Fifth Amendment because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth
Amendment's due process clause?
IV. Arguments
Plako argued that his second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. That this protection applies to the states by virtue of the
Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause
Connecticut argued that double jeopardy was not a fundamental right protected under the 14th
amendment. So there for they can appeal for a second trial.
Opinion: I agree with Plako that having a second conviction violates one of natural rights.
V. Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Connecticut a 8-1 decision.
VI. Reasoning
The Supreme Court upheld the second convection. The majority opinion was written by Justice
Cardozo. He noted “that some Bill of Rights guarantees--such as freedom of thought and speech-are fundamental, and that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause absorbed these
fundamental rights and applied them to the states”. Protection against double jeopardy was not a
fundamental right. Palko died in Connecticut's electric chair on April 12, 1938. There was
dissent opinion.
VII. Personal Opinion
I completely disagree with how the Supreme Court ruled on this one. In my opinion if you go
through the trial once and the people have already decided your fate its over the state should not
have more say. You have the right fair trial with a jury yet if the state doesn’t get the result it
wants it can appeal and have another case.
(Other side of the argument)
The other side to my argument is that he killed two police officers. It is not fair for him to get off
with second degree murder. Secondly double jeopardy is not a natural right like the right
freedom of speech is, so there for if it’s not protected by the fedrale government and is not
protected under the 14th amendment.
VIII. Historical Significance of the Case
Palko V. Connecticut was not the first test of the bill of rights at the state level. This case said
that double jeopardy is not a fundamental right like the freedom of speech is, so it does not
receive the same protection. This case said that if your cause is settled in a way witch the other
party involved is not happy the other party has the right to another trial if they win an appeal.
Sources
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1937/1937_135/