What was the US Supreme Court's decision in Palko v. Connecticut?

Answer 1

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319 (1937)

Answer

The Court held the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause did not apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Connecticut had not deprived the defendant of due process by retrying his case and obtaining a harsher penalty.

Explanation

The defendant, Palko, was indicted on first degree murder charges for a crime committed in Fairfield County, Connecticut. At his first trial, the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison.

The prosecutor asserted the judge had committed the following procedural errors at trial:

1. excluded testimony regarding the defendant's confession
2. excluded testimony on cross-examination of defendant to impeach his credibility
3. the judge erred in instructing the jury about the difference between first and second degree murder

Under Connecticut law at that time, the prosecution could appeal a criminal case if the court made legal errors. The prosecutor received the trial judge's permission to appeal Palko's case to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. The Court of Errors overturned the jury's decision and remanded the case to the original court for a new trial (State v. Palko, 121 Conn. 669, 186 Atl. 657).

Before the new jury was empaneled, Palko's attorney objected to the second trial on the grounds that the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The attorney raised the same objection at various other points during his client's trial; however, he was overruled in each instance.

The second jury found Palko guilty of first degree murder and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the verdict, and Palko appealed to the US Supreme Court, claiming infringement of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Supreme Court Decision

On appeal, Palko asserted the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause fully applied the Bill of Rights (specifically, Amendments I-VIII) to the states.

In the opinion of the Court, Justice Benjamin Cardozo disagreed with the petitioner's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, explaining the states only "absorbed" constitutional privileges and immunities that dealt with fundamental liberties, such as freedom of speech, but were not compelled to uphold certain lesser issues that restrained the Federal Government. According to the Court, double jeopardy was not a fundamental liberty, and therefore, Palko had not been denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The US Supreme Court affirmed the second conviction, and Palko was executed on April 12, 1938.

Discussion

The Bill of Rights was originally written to protect citizens from actions of the United States' federal government, and was not applicable to state governments. The doctrine of state sovereignty allowed states to ratify their own constitutions, to which their laws and practices adhered. Some protections were greater than those afforded by the US Constitution, but others were excluded entirely. There was very little consistency from state to state.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court looked upon the "Reconstruction Amendments" (13th, 14th, and 15th) primarily as a means of protecting African-Americans' civil rights and status following the emancipation. The Amendment was not considered a tool for incorporating the US Constitution's Bill of Rights to the states, as is commonly believed. In fact, the Supreme Court actively rejected the idea of using the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the states in the Slaughter-House Cases, (1873).

Later, the Supreme Court adopted the concept of "absorption," (what we now refer to as "selective incorporation") which uses the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause to selectively apply to the states individual clauses within the Bill of Rights, as need arises. The first rights incorporated were considered "fundamental liberties," such as the First Amendment freedom of speech; while others, such as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, were initially considered less important and not adopted until the latter half of the 20th century. As of 2009, the Second, Third, and Seventh Amendments are still unincorporated, as are a few clauses of certain other amendments.

At the time Palko was appealed to the US Supreme Court (1937), the Fifth Amendment had not been incorporated, so Palko's claim ran counter to established precedent.

Palko's second trial (that triggered the double jeopardy challenge) was enabled by an 1866 Connecticut state statute that allowed the prosecutor to appeal criminal cases on points of law or legal error to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors for reconsideration.

"Sec. 6494. Appeals by the state in criminal cases.Appeals from the rulings and decisions of the superior court or of any criminal court of common pleas, upon all questions of law arising on the trial of criminal cases, may be taken by the state, with the permission of the presiding judge, to the supreme court of errors, in the same manner and to the same effect as if made by the accused."

The Supreme Court's decision in Palko v. Connecticutstood until the Warren Court decided the double jeopardy clause applied to the states in Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 (1969).