Skip to content


Benton Vs. Maryland. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

US Supreme Court

Decided On

Case Number

392 U.S. 925

Appellant

Benton

Respondent

Maryland.

Excerpt:


benton v. maryland. - 392 u.s. 925 (1968) u.s. supreme court benton v. maryland. , 392 u.s. 925 (1968) 392 u.s. 925 john dalmer benton, petitioner, v. maryland. no. 1185, misc. supreme court of the united states june 17, 1968 h. thomas sisk and m. michael cramer, for petitioner. francis b. burch, atty. gen. of maryland, and edward f. borgerding, asst. atty. gen., for respondent. motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari to the court of special appeals of maryland granted limited to the following questions: (1) is the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment? page 392 u.s. 925 , 926 (2) if so, was the petitioner 'twice put in jeopardy' in this case? case transferred to the appellate docket and placed on the summary calendar.

Judgment:


BENTON v. MARYLAND. - 392 U.S. 925 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court BENTON v. MARYLAND. , 392 U.S. 925 (1968)

392 U.S. 925

John Dalmer BENTON, petitioner,
v.
MARYLAND.
No. 1185, Misc.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 1968

H. Thomas Sisk and M. Michael Cramer, for petitioner.

Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, and Edward F. Borgerding, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland granted limited to the following questions:

(1) Is the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Page 392 U.S. 925 , 926

(2) If so, was the petitioner 'twice put in jeopardy' in this case? Case transferred to the appellate docket and placed on the summary calendar.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //