Case Brief 7 - Palko v. Connecticut PDF

Title Case Brief 7 - Palko v. Connecticut
Author Gahee Park
Course American Constitutional Law: Civil Liberties
Institution Wake Forest University
Pages 1
File Size 58.2 KB
File Type PDF
Total Downloads 34
Total Views 150

Summary

It's a reading notes for the cases that we had to turn in every class...


Description

POL 226, Dr. Harriger – Janice Park Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937) Facts: Legally Relevant Facts : The appellant argued that “there had been error of law to the prejudice of the state (1) in excluding testimony as to a confession by defendant; (2) in excluding testimony upon cross-examination of defendant to impeach his credibility, and (3) in the instructions to the jury as to the difference between first and second degree murder” (p.669). Procedurally Relevant Facts : Frank Palko was originally accused of second-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He requested for the retrial, and during the retrial, he was sentenced to death as he was found guilty of first-degree murder.

Issue(s): The main issue that Justice Cardozo looks here is more determining “the respective responsibilities of the federal government and the states and to identify the individual rights found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (p.669).

Holding: The lower court’s decision is affirmed, as the state is not attempting to violate the fundamental principles of liberty and justice.

Reasoning: It is true that the Fourteenth Amendment could be applied to state governments in certain situations such as when the state abridged, by its statues, the freedom of speech, freedom of press, the freedom exercise of religion, the right of peaceable assembly without speeches that would be unduly trammeled, or the right of one accused of crime to the benefit of counsel. However, in this case, these fundamental principles of liberty and justices were not violated and the double jeopardy did not subject the appellant in a hardship so acute and shocking to the point our polity will not endure it. Also, the state did not accuse him of a multitude of cases with accumulated trials, and the conviction of appellant is not derogating any of his privileges or immunities that belong to him as a citizen of United States....


Similar Free PDFs