Halberstam Sp02 All Crim Pro Briefs

Halberstam Sp02 All Crim Pro Briefs - Elan Weinreb Criminal...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Elan Weinreb Criminal Procedure January 21, 2002 Palko v . Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937) Rule(s) of Law: The 14 th Amendments due process clause, as well as its privileges and immunities clause, does not preclude a state from subjecting an individual accused of a crime to double jeopardy in that the 5 th Amendments guarantee against double jeopardy was never held to be incorporated by the clauses of the 14 th Amendment. It is only where rights are concerned which are fundamental or are implicit in an ordered scheme of liberty that the incorporation doctrine will apply. NOTE: Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1979), overturned this rule of law and made the prohibition of double jeopardy applicable to the states via the 14 th Amendment. Facts and Procedural History/Outcome: Appellant Palko was indicted in Connecticut for Murder 1. A jury found him guilty of Murder 2. The state of Connecticut appealed the verdict to the states highest court (Supreme Court of Errors), pursuant to a Connecticut statute. The claim for appeal was that there had been error to the state in that testimony of a confession by Palko was excluded, testimony on cross-examination that led to Palkos impeachment was excluded, and that the instructions to the jury regarding the difference between Murder 1 and Murder 2 were improper. The states arguments were held as valid by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, and a new trial took place. At this new trial, Palko made the argument that the effect of the new trial was to place him in double jeopardy for the same offense committed. This argument was denied by the trial court, and Palko went to trial. He was convicted of Murder 1 and sentenced to death. Palko then took an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed his conviction. Issue(s): Is a state statute that allows for appeals of errors of law by the state in criminal prosecutions violative of the United States Constitution in that the Constitution requires the states, via the 14 th Amendments due process or privileges and immunities clause, to adhere to the 5 th Amendments prohibition against double jeopardy? Holding(s): Such a statute is not violative of the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution. Rationale (Cardozo): It is true that in the case of Kepner v. United States, decided in 1904, the meaning of double jeopardy in federal prosecutions was taken to mean that double jeopardy would exist if a new trial was at the instance of the government and not upon defendants motion on appeal. Thus, in federal prosecutions, double jeopardy can exist irrespective of the independence of a proceeding (i.e., you dont need a separate criminal proceeding for double jeopardy to be invokedit can arise out of the course of the original proceeding)....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/14/2008 for the course LAW 7118 taught by Professor Halberstam during the Spring '02 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 216

Halberstam Sp02 All Crim Pro Briefs - Elan Weinreb Criminal...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online