Palko Case Summary
Palko v. State of Connecticut Ben Nguyen 302 U.S. 319 (Dec. 6, 1937)
Interpretation of the Bill of Rights is a task that provides great challenge for the
courts of the United States. As the times change and cases are reviewed, the ruling for a
case may be overruled. In the case of Palko v. Connecticut, this situation had occurred.
Although this case had not been the first to examine the pertinence of the Bill of Rights in
level with State law, it had provided a different modus operandi in doing so. Frank Palko, the appellant, was defended by David Goldstein and George A.
Saden while William H. Comley served …show more content…
Since Connecticut had a state law permitting it to appeal his
case, he was retried by the Supreme Court of Connecticut and as a result was charged
with first degree murder and faced the punishment of death. In response of facing double
jeopardy or being tried twice for the same offense, Palko then appealed to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Palko and his defense argued that although the fifth
amendment grants protection from double jeopardy on the federal level, as said through
“nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb”, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which states, “nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” would
allow such protection to be utilized on the State level and thus making his second
conviction a violation of the protection against double jeopardy. Unfortunately, the
Supreme Court did not concur with Palko’s argument.
The Supreme Court justices at the time of the case included Hugo
Interpretation of the Bill of Rights is a task that provides great challenge for the
courts of the United States. As the times change and cases are reviewed, the ruling for a
case may be overruled. In the case of Palko v. Connecticut, this situation had occurred.
Although this case had not been the first to examine the pertinence of the Bill of Rights in
level with State law, it had provided a different modus operandi in doing so. Frank Palko, the appellant, was defended by David Goldstein and George A.
Saden while William H. Comley served …show more content…
Since Connecticut had a state law permitting it to appeal his
case, he was retried by the Supreme Court of Connecticut and as a result was charged
with first degree murder and faced the punishment of death. In response of facing double
jeopardy or being tried twice for the same offense, Palko then appealed to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Palko and his defense argued that although the fifth
amendment grants protection from double jeopardy on the federal level, as said through
“nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb”, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which states, “nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” would
allow such protection to be utilized on the State level and thus making his second
conviction a violation of the protection against double jeopardy. Unfortunately, the
Supreme Court did not concur with Palko’s argument.
The Supreme Court justices at the time of the case included Hugo