1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
r-ruslan [8.4K]
3 years ago
6

What was the Supreme Court’s main decision in Palko v. Connecticut? Palko was the victim of unconstitutional double jeopardy. Pa

lko’s sentence should be reversed. Palko could not be convicted because of his Fifth Amendment rights. Palko’s conviction and execution should be upheld.
History
2 answers:
bija089 [108]3 years ago
4 0

​The answer is: Palko’s conviction and execution should be upheld

Palko was a robber who shot two polices during his act of robbery. He was initially charged with first-degree murder (which is punishable by death sentence) but the prosecutor fail to obtain enough evidence, so palko was chraged with lesser punishment for second degree murder.

After they got enough evidence, Palko was forced to face re-trial and the court deicded that Palko need to be convicted and executed in a first-degree murder.

sammy [17]3 years ago
4 0

The Supreme Court's main decision Palko v. Connecticut was that Palko's conviction and execution should be upheld.

Palko v. Connecticut was a supreme court case in which the court ruled that provisions of the federal double jeopardy of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution cannot be applied to the states. The court ruling also laid the foundation for the notion that some freedoms as contained in the bill of rights appeared more important than others.

<h2>Further Explanation </h2>

Frank Palka was charged with first-degree murder but sentenced to life imprisonment. He was sentenced to life imprisonment based on a lesser offense of second-degree murder. However, the case was appealed by prosecutors under the Connecticut law and Palka was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.

Palka appealed the court judgment and argued that he was protected under the Fifth Amendment against double jeopardy, which he argued that the law was also applied to the state government.

However, in the Supreme Court decision delivered by Justice Benjamin Cardozo, the court ruled that the provisions of the federal jeopardy Fifth Amendment did not apply to states and therefore the decision of the lower court, which sentenced Palka to death, was upheld.

LEARN MORE:

  • What was the supreme court’s main decision in palko v. connecticut?  brainly.com/question/1969489
  • What was the Supreme Court’s main decision in Palko v. Connecticut? brainly.com/question/3237805

KEYWORDS:

  • palko
  • connecticut
  • supreme court
  • fifth amendment
  • main decision
You might be interested in
Why did the people of Egypt and Nubia face few invasions
maw [93]
They were in the middle of the desert. It would be a large risk to trek through such a large desert to attack them.

7 0
3 years ago
The columbian exchange resulted in opportunities for individuals to invest their money and build wealth leading to the rise of c
Ivan
The statement would be true that the exchange resulted in those opportunities.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
From the 1830s on, people hoping to settle in the Northwest
CaHeK987 [17]
<span>followed a trail blazed by Zebulon Pike, hope this helps 

 #brainlyzkool</span>
4 0
3 years ago
Which of the following statement bes describes french settlers treatment of native americans
vitfil [10]
Answer is: <span>French settlers were on friendly terms with Native Americans and they relied on them to provide furs.
</span><span>French settlers established the colony of Quebec in 1608 and developed economic and political relationships with many Indian groups.
</span><span>French went back to France in the winter months with ships laden with furs they had purchased from the Natives with weapons and horses.</span>
8 0
4 years ago
Why were people emphatic about adding a bill of rights
ki77a [65]

Answer:

Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How do the english civil war and the glorious differ from each other?
    5·1 answer
  • During his Presidency, Thomas Jefferson convinced Congress to abandon A) Bank of the United States. B) embargo on trade with Bri
    5·1 answer
  • Was obama a republican
    15·2 answers
  • The reliance of the north on its economy to win the war is most evident in
    5·1 answer
  • The family line of Jesus is established in Isaiah. True False
    14·1 answer
  • This artifact was originally found near a pyramid in Saqqara, Egypt, inside the coffin of a man called Abed. The artifact looks
    11·2 answers
  • Why should Europe and other developed countries be concerned about the
    15·1 answer
  • At what point during the American
    7·2 answers
  • What role did imperialism have in the late 19th and early 20th century ?
    7·1 answer
  • Analyze American Indians’ blending of Christian and traditional practices, according to author James Treat
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!