TO:

FROM:
DATE:
RE: Hurtado v. California
CITATION: Hurtado v. California - 110 U.S. 516, 4 S. Ct. 111 (1884)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Hurtado unsuccessfully appealed his conviction throughout state

appellate courts; the court denied the motion to set aside the verdict based upon a due process
violation.The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.The U.S. Supreme
Court took the case upon a writ of error from the California Supreme Court.

FACTS: The district attorney of Sacramento County had filed information against Joseph
Hurtado, charging him with the murder of Jose Stuardo. Hurtado was arraigned, tried, convicted
of the crime, and sentenced to death.
ISSUE: Is an indictment by grand jury necessary to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment in state felony prosecutions?

HOLDING: No

RULE: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that a state
felony prosecution begin with indictment by a grand jury.

REASON: Any legal proceeding that protects liberty and justice is due process. Judge Matthews,
writing for the majority opinion, states that the states should have the liberty to construct their
own laws without infringement and that the 14th Amendment was not guaranteed the right of a
grand jury because it would have been specifically referenced. They also stated that nothing in
the Constitution is superfluous.
TO:

FROM:

DATE:

RE: Palko v. State of Connecticut

CITATION:Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S 319 (1937)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Initially, Palko was indicted for first degree murder but after the
trial the jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder. Palko appealed his second
conviction. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the second conviction. The U.S
Supreme Court granted cert.

FACTS: Frank Palko had broken into a local music store and stolen a phonograph, escaped but
was then was cornered by the police. He shot and killed two police officers and managed to
escape. He was then captured a month later. Palko was charged with first degree murder but then
after a trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder. He was then sentenced
to life in prison.

ISSUE: Does a second trial in state court for the same crime place Palko in double jeopardy
guaranteed by the 5th amendment, violating a defendant’s right to due process of law under the
Fourteenth Amendment?

HOLDING: No

RULE: The Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right that
flows to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

REASON: Cardozo wrote for the majority noting that the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee
the freedom of thought and speech and they are important and that the Fourteenth Amendment's
due process clause contains these fundamental rights and applied them to the states. However,
Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right.
TO:

FROM:

DATE:

RE: McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.

CITATION:McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Both the trial court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
McDonald and other petitioners' argument. The U.S Supreme Court granted cert.

FACTS: The City of Chicago has laws that productively put a ban on handgun possession to
combat crime and minimize handgun related deaths and serious injuries. Chicago’s law required
anyone who wanted to own a handgun to register it. Otis McDonald and petitioners sued the City
of Chicago for violating the Second Amendment of the Constitution. They had claimed that
Chicago's handgun regulation violated their 14th Amendment rights.

ISSUE: 1. Does the Second Amendment apply to the States by virtue of the Privileges or
Immunities Clause?

2. Should the Second Amendment be applicable to the States by incorporation under the
Due Process Clause?

HOLDING: 1. No

2. Yes

RULE: The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause allows the Second Amendment right –
to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense – to be applied to the States by
incorporation.

REASON: In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of McDonald. The majority agreed that the
14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment right that self-defense is a basic right, and
that in the case of D.C v Heller, individual self-defense is the central component of the 2nd
Amendment right to bear arms. But the court suggested that there should be reasonable gun
restrictions.
TO:

FROM:

DATE:

RE:Griswold v. Connecticut

CITATION: Griswold v. Connecticut

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The Appellate Division of the Circuit and the Supreme Court of
Errors affirmed the previous decision of the lower court’s conviction. Buxton and Griswold then
appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and were granted cert.

FACTS: C. Lee Buxton, a licensed doctor and Yale professor, served as Director for the Planned
Parenthood League of Connecticut. Estelle Griswold also worked with Dr. Buxton and served as
Executive Director. Both Buxton and Griswold were arrested and convicted as “accessories”
under a state statute for giving out information, medical advice and instruction to married
couples on how to prevent conception. The Connecticut state statute prevented the use of or
assistance in preventing contraception. They both challenged the convictions claiming the statute
violated the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy.

ISSUE: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a
couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

HOLDING: Yes

RULE: In the Bill of Rights, an implied right to privacy exists which prohibits the state from
preventing married couples from using a form of contraception.

● The 1st Amendment includes the right to associate

● The 3rd Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in a person’s house without their
consent
● The 4th Amendment protects against self-incrimination
● The 9th Amendment provides that the remuneration of certain rights in the Constitution
“shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

REASON: In a 7-2 decision, the court went in favor of Griswold, saying the state law in
Connecticut was unconstitutional. A couple has the right of privacy concerning the issue of use
of contraceptives, and planned parenthoods therefore, have the right to teach couples about the
different methods and uses of different contraceptives.

NOTES: This decision was a pivotal point of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights
in the United States. The case of Griswold V. Connecticut paved the way for the legalization of
birth control for unmarried couples and was used in the arguments of the Supreme Court case,
Roe V. Wade and safe and legal abortions.