After frank palko was sentenced to death by the state of connecticut, the supreme court ruled that a. his conviction and execution should be upheld. b. the case should be thrown out for lack of evidence. c. his sentence should be reduced. d. he was the victim of double jeopardy.

The correct answer is A.

Palko v. Connecticut ( 1937) was  a Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection of double jeopardy.

Frank Palko had been charged with first degree murder. He was instead convinced of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. The state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial, this time the court found Palko guilty of first degree murder and sentenced him to death.

Palko refused the sentence because it violated his constitutional right of protection against double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court upheld Palko's latest conviction. The Justices stated the the protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right.

Palko died in Connecticut's electric chair on April 12, 1938.

        i'm fairly sure that the correct answers are 2 and 3.

        i used both my knowledge of world history and the process of elimination to obtain these answers. option 1 cannot be a possible selection because the mandate of heaven belongs to ancient chinese philosophical belief. option 4 sounds like it would benefit the region than detriment it. however, both 2 and 3 explain a potential reason for what could have contributed to the fall of the roman empire.

      hope this ! if i were you, i'd get a second opinion, because i haven't taken this course for a year. best of luck!

***websites that me understand the curriculum better last year are and ***

no one really purchased it themselves, it was all america, they had debates etc.