Loewy, Arnold H.2014-05-222014-05-22196643 Conn. B.J. 408http://hdl.handle.net/10601/1960On April 4, 1966, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cichos v. Indiana to consider the following questions: 1. Is the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy of such basic characteristic in law as to be immune, under the Fourteenth Amendment, from state encroachment? 2. Should Palko v. Connecticut be reconsidered and overruled? Inasmuch as Palko held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy was not immune from state encroachment, the two questions are really one. The most important aspect of constitutional adjudication is not the ultimate disposition of the case, but the methodology employed to reach that disposition. The methodology herein advocated is that each state procedure alleged to be inconsistent with due process be adjudged on its merits rather than prejudged by a case involving another procedure no more than remotely related to the one under consideration.en-USFourteenth AmendmentFifth AmendmentDouble jeopardyDue processArticle