http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>Is a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against himself applicable in state courts and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause?</p><p>A divided Court found that the the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts. Citing past decisions such as Twining v. New Jersey (1908), which explicitly denied the application of the due process clause to the right against self-incrimination, and Palko v. Connecticut (1937), Justice Reed argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend carte blanche all of the immunities and privileges of the first ten amendments to individuals at the state level. In a lengthy dissent which included a deep investigation of the Fourteenth Amendment's history, Justice Black argued for the absolute and complete application of the Bill of Rights to the states.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_102/ <p>Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?</p><p>No. A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_52/ <p>Does the second attempted execution deny Francis due process of law because of double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and because of cruel and unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment?</p><p>No and no. The equipment failure does not bring due process into play. This was not the wanton infliction of unnecessary pain in the execution of the death sentence. And the cruelty of the Eighth Amendment refers to cruelty in method, not that cruelty which is part of the actual suffering accompanying a lawful sentence of death.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_142/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_20/