Palko v. Connecticut

Background

A man was tried in Connecticut for murder. A jury first found him guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life. With the trial judge’s permission, the State used an 1886 law to appeal legal rulings to the state’s Supreme Court. That court found three legal errors that harmed the State’s case — excluding a confession, excluding impeachment cross-examination, and faulty jury instructions about murder degrees — and ordered a new trial. At the second trial the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He objected that being tried again violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against being tried twice for the same offense.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes every protection in the federal Bill of Rights apply to the states, including the Fifth Amendment rule against double jeopardy. The opinion explains that some federal rights are absorbed into “due process” because they are fundamental, while others are not. The Court concluded that the kind of retrial authorized by the Connecticut statute was not so shocking to liberty as to violate due process. The statute lets the State seek review and a new trial to correct substantial legal error, is limited by the judge’s discretion, and is reciprocal. On that basis the Court affirmed the conviction and rejected the claim under the privileges and immunities clause as well.

Real world impact

States may, under similar laws and judicial safeguards, appeal certain trial rulings and obtain retrials to correct significant legal mistakes. Defendants remain protected from oppressive or repeated prosecutions, but a retrial after an appellate reversal is not categorically barred by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision is limited to the statute and facts before the Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Butler dissented.