Duncan v. Louisiana and the Incorporation
of the Sixth Amendment Right to Trial by Jury
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Writing for the Court, Justice Marshall holds that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states
Fourteenth Amendment (1868)
Privileges and Immunities
Due Process
Equal Protection
Walter v. Sulvinett (1876)
No right to a jury trial
Bill of Rights does not apply to the states
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago (1897)
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Fifth Amendment (fair compensation clause) to the states
Twining v. New Jersey (1908)
Self-Incrimination
Albert Twining refuses to testify against himself-loses his appeal
However, Justice William Moody suggests in the decision for the court that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment might incorporate a right which is "a fundamental principle of liberty and justice which inheres in the very idea of free government"
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Freedom of Speech
Benjamin Gitlow convicted of violating the Criminal Anarchy Law of New York-wins his appeal
Incorporation of freedom of speech and of the press as "fundamental personal rights and liberties" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Double Jeopardy
Palko tried twice for first-degree murder, convicted second time-loses his appeal
However, Justice Cardozo proposes a standard for selective or partial incorporation of rights that are of the "very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty"
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Right to Jury in Criminal Trial
Justice White writes for the Court: "Because we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, we hold that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which-were they to be tried in a federal court-would come within the Sixth Amendment's guarantee."
Benton v. Maryland (1969)
Double Jeopardy
Benton tried twice for larceny, convicted second time-conviction overturned
Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, describes the protection against double jeopardy as "a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage"
Although it reverses the particular decision by Justice Cardozo in Palko, the Court still adheres to his concept of "ordered liberty" as an overall criterion for the incorporation doctrine