Benton v. Maryland

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Benton v. Maryland
ArgueDate=December 12
ArgueYear=1968
ReargueDate=March 24
ReargueYear=1969
DecideDate=June 23
DecideYear=1969
FullName=Benton v. Maryland
USVol=395
USPage=784
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=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.
SCOTUS=1969b
Majority=Marshall
JoinMajority=Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan
Concurrence=White
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Harlan
JoinDissent=Stewart
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. V and XIV

"Benton v. Maryland", ussc|395|784|1969, [ussc|395|784|full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com] was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court concerning double jeopardy, that overruled an earlier landmark decision "Palko v. Connecticut".

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 to the United States Constitution incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and 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."

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395

References

External links

* [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0784_ZO.html Opinion of the US Supreme Court at Cornell Law]