Benton v. Maryland

395 U.S. 784 (1969), argued 12 Dec. 1968, reargued 24 Mar. 1969, decided 23 June 1969 by vote of 7 to 2; Marshall for the Court, Harlan and Stewart in dissent. The issue in Benton was whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from subjecting a person to double jeopardy. The Court had confronted that precise issue thirty years earlier in Palko v. Connecticut (1937), where it ruled that the double jeopardy standard of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. Rejecting the doctrine of incorporation, Palko applied the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates only those rights that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (p. 324).

In Benton the Court overruled Palko in part, holding that the double jeopardy prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most significantly, the Court rejected the Palko notion that states can deny rights to criminal defendants so long as the denial is not shocking to a universal sense of justice. Instead, the Court ruled that states must extend those guarantees in the Bill of Rights that are fundamental to the American scheme of justice.

With respect to the guarantee against double jeopardy, the Court observed that its origins can be traced to English common law, which was adopted in our country's jurisprudence. Every state has some form of the prohibition in its constitution or common law. Accordingly, the guarantee against double jeopardy is clearly among those rights that are deeply ingrained in the American system and thus made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

See also Due Process, Procedural; Incorporation Doctrine.

— Daan Braveman

• 395 U.S. 784 (1969)
• Vote: 7–2
• For the Court: Marshall
• Dissenting: Harlan and Stewart

Benton was charged by the state of Maryland with committing two crimes: larceny and burglary. The jury found Benton innocent of larceny and guilty of burglary. Benton appealed his conviction for burglary. This led to the reopening of the larceny charges. In the new trial, Benton was found guilty of both charges—larceny and burglary—and sent to prison.

The Issue

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution provides protection against what is known as double jeopardy. It says that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” However, Benton had been tried twice by the state of Maryland for the same offense. Benton said that the state had violated his 5th Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy.

The state's attorneys pointed to the Supreme Court decision in Palko v. Connecticut (1937), which held that the 5th Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy was not applicable to the states because the due process clause of the 14th Amendment did not apply this right to the state courts. Therefore, this 5th Amendment right, they said, limited only federal government actions, not those of state governments. Was the 5th Amendment ban on double jeopardy applicable to state governments?

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to the states. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that this 5th Amendment guarantee “represents a fundamental ideal.” This right, wrote Marshall, is certainly among those rights that are central to the American concept of justice.

Significance

The Benton decision overruled Palko by holding that the double jeopardy prohibition of the 5th Amendment is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. This case became part of the gradual process by which the Court, during the 20th century, has applied most parts of the federal Bill of Rights to the states, on a case-by-case basis.

See also Double jeopardy; Palko v. Connecticut

Benton v. Maryland
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 12, 1968 Reargued March 24, 1969 Decided June 23, 1969
Full case name	Benton v. Maryland
Citations	395 U.S. 784 (more)
Subsequent history	1 Md. App. 647, 232 A. 2d 541, vacated and remanded
Holding
The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy is enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan, Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
Majority	Marshall, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan
Concurrence	White
Dissent	Harlan, joined by Stewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V and XIV

Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states. In doing so, Benton expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).

Contents 1 Background 2 Court's Decision 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

Background

John Dalmer Benton was tried on charges of larceny and burglary. He was acquitted of larceny, but found guilty on the burglary count. As a result, Benton was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Shortly after Benton's conviction, the Maryland Court of Appeals had ruled in Schowgurow v. State that the portion of the Maryland Constitution which had required all jurors to swear their belief in the existence of God was itself unconstitutional. Since the jurors in Benton's case had been selected under the unconstitutional provision, he was given the option of demanding a new trial. Benton did in fact choose to undergo a new trial, but at the second trial, the state again charged Benton with larceny even though he had been acquitted of larceny in the first trial. The second trial concluded with Benton being found guilty of both burglary and larceny.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that the second trial constituted double jeopardy. There was no protection against double jeopardy in Maryland from its state constitution, but the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and so made it enforceable against the states. As a result, the Court overturned the larceny conviction. Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote:

"It is clear that petitioner's larceny conviction cannot stand once federal double jeopardy standards are applied. Petitioner was acquitted of larceny in his first trial. Because he decided to appeal his burglary conviction, he is forced to suffer retrial on the larceny count as well. As this Court held in Green v. United States ... 'conditioning an appeal of one offense on a coerced surrender of a valid plea of former jeopardy on another offense exacts a forfeiture in plain conflict with the constitutional bar against double jeopardy.'"

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395

References

External links

• Text of Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) is available from:  · Enfacto · LII

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)