Facts of the Case
Benton was charged with burglary and larceny in a Maryland court. A jury found him not guilty of larceny but guilty of burglary. He was sentenced to ten years in prison. He won his appeal on the grounds that the grand jury that indicted him and the petit jury that convicted him were selected unconstitutionally. The case was remanded and Benton chose to confront a new grand jury. It indicted him for larceny and burglary; the petit jury found him guilty of both charges. Benton then appealed arguing that that re-indicting him on the larceny charge after he had been acquitted amounted to double jeopardy. The Maryland Supreme Court affirmed, following the U.S. Supreme Court's Palko decision, which held that the double-jeopardy clause did not apply to state court criminal proceedings.
Questions
Did Benton's second indictment, trial, and conviction for larceny violate the Fifth Amendment provision against double jeopardy?
Conclusions
-
Yes. The Court -- in a 7-2 decision -- overruled Palko, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states is an element of liberty protected by Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, Benton's larceny conviction was overturned. Justice Thurgood Marshall authored the majority opinion.
Principles of State Constitutional Interpretation
Federalist Society Review, Volume 23
State constitutionalism—the practice of state courts deciding cases on independent state constitutional grounds—is a vital...
