Skip to content


Benton Vs. Maryland. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number392 U.S. 925
AppellantBenton
RespondentMaryland.
Excerpt:
.....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 // Organizer Client Files //