Yes. The rule against double jeopardy is one of the most important rights in the Bill of Rights, and it must apply to the states. States can't just ignore fundamental rights. Benton was already found not guilty of stealing. It was completely unfair to force him to be tried for that crime again just because he wanted to legally challenge his other conviction. We are overturning an old case that gave states more leeway on this.

No. The Court should have stuck with the old rule that let states handle their own justice systems as long as they were 'fundamentally fair.' The Court was too eager to make a big constitutional decision here. However, I agree that what happened to Benton was fundamentally unfair, so while I disagree with the Court's reasoning, I agree that his second conviction for stealing should be thrown out.

Yes. I agree with the main opinion, but I want to add something. When a person is convicted of several crimes at once, and the prison sentences run at the same time, courts should still be allowed to save time by only reviewing one of the convictions. Court schedules are very busy, and it's a waste of time to review extra convictions if it won't change how long the person stays in prison.

Yes, the rule against double jeopardy applies to the states too. Benton shouldn't have been tried again for stealing after being found not guilty the first time. The state can't make Benton give up his right not to be tried twice just because he appealed his breaking in conviction. Not being tried twice for the same crime is a really important right that all states have to respect.

The Court shouldn't have decided the double jeopardy issue in this case. Benton's stealing conviction probably won't cause him any real harm, so the Court could have skipped reviewing it. The Court seems too eager to force the states to follow the double jeopardy rule. Trying Benton again for stealing was unfair, but for a different legal reason - it violated his right to due process.

The rule about not reviewing convictions that won't lengthen prison time makes sense to save courts' time and resources. But if an unreviewed conviction causes problems for a defendant later, the court may need to go back and review it then. This shouldn't be too hard to do. Courts can decide not to use this rule if they think a conviction will cause real harm later on.

The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

—"*** the double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment represents a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage, and that it should apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment."

This constitutional guarantee applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n] o person shall*** be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb," and is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

While Justice Black's theory was never adopted, the Court eventually moved in that direction by initiating what has been called a process of "selective incorporation," ie, the Court began to hold that the Due Process Clause fully incorporates particular rights contained in the first eight Amendments.

—the Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and that "the same constitutional standards apply against both the State and Federal Governments."

A citizen's right to due process in state court, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, includes the immunity from double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's recent decisions have rejected the notion from Palko v. Connecticut that states are only bound by a 'watered-down, subjective version' of Bill of Rights guarantees. Once a right is determined to be 'fundamental to the American scheme of justice,' as the protection against double jeopardy is, the same constitutional standards apply to both state and federal governments. Therefore, Palko is overruled. Applying this standard, Benton's retrial on the larceny charge, of which he had been acquitted, was unconstitutional. Conditioning an appeal of his burglary conviction on the forfeiture of his valid acquittal on the larceny charge violates the constitutional bar against double jeopardy.

No. The holding of Palko v. Connecticut, which declined to incorporate the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states, should not be overruled. The majority's decision is another step in the 'unchecked march' toward incorporating the Bill of Rights, which erodes the principles of federalism. The Court should have avoided this constitutional question by applying the concurrent sentence doctrine, as the larceny conviction had no significant adverse consequences beyond the valid burglary conviction. However, even under Palko's fundamental fairness analysis, retrying Benton for larceny after an acquittal would be a denial of due process, so the reversal of the larceny conviction is correct in result, though not in its broad constitutional reasoning.

Yes. While agreeing that the Double Jeopardy Clause should be extended to the states and that the concurrent sentence rule is not a jurisdictional bar, the concurrent sentence doctrine should be preserved as a discretionary tool of judicial administration. In an era of congested dockets, it is a matter of fairness to other litigants for courts to have the option to decline review of a redundant conviction when another valid, concurrent conviction exists. This allows judicial resources to be focused on more pressing cases where the outcome actually affects a person's liberty.

Yes, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Benton's larceny conviction cannot stand because he was acquitted of larceny in his first trial. The State cannot force Benton to waive his valid double jeopardy claim by appealing his burglary conviction. The prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage, and the same constitutional standards apply against both the State and Federal Governments. Palko v. Connecticut is overruled insofar as it is inconsistent with this holding.

The Court should not have reached the double jeopardy issue in this case. The concurrent sentence doctrine should have been applied to decline review of Benton's larceny conviction, as it is unlikely to have any significant adverse consequences. The Court appears eager to incorporate the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states, but this is unwise. Under a proper due process analysis, Benton's retrial for larceny denied him due process, as the State had no legitimate interest in compelling him to stand trial again for an offense he was previously acquitted of.

The concurrent sentence rule has value as a matter of judicial administration, conserving scarce judicial resources. However, if an unreviewed conviction is later used against a defendant to his detriment, it may be necessary to provide the review that was initially denied. Postponed review in such situations should not present insurmountable difficulties. Courts may choose not to apply the concurrent sentence rule where each count is predicted to entail concrete prejudicial consequences later on.

Benton v. Maryland

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot