Palko v. Connecticut (1937) Summary

In Palko v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause did not incorporate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination against the states. Frank Palko's confession, obtained without a warning of his right to remain silent, was deemed admissible in state court. Justice Cardozo ruled that only "fundamental principles of liberty and justice" are incorporated; the right against self-incrimination was not considered fundamental at the time. This decision was later overturned by Malloy v. Hogan (1964) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which extended Fifth Amendment protections to state proceedings.