Benton v. Maryland

Supreme Court

Benton v. Maryland

392 U.S. 925

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 17, 1968

DocketNo. 1185

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 392 U.S. 925 (Benton v. Maryland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benton v. Maryland, 392 U.S. 925 (1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following questions:

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

H. Thomas Sisk and M. Michael Cramer for petitioner. Francis B. Burch, Attorney General of Maryland, and Edward F. Borgerd-ing, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

(2) If so, was the .petitioner “twice put in jeopardy” in this case?

Case transferred to appellate docket.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following questions:

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

H. Thomas Sisk and M. Michael Cramer for petitioner. Francis B. Burch, Attorney General of Maryland, and Edward F. Borgerd-ing, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

(2) If so, was the .petitioner “twice put in jeopardy” in this case?

Case transferred to appellate docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 U.S. 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-v-maryland-scotus-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack