Also known as: jot-for-jot · word for word · verbatim
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An approach to selective incorporation under which a Bill of Rights provision applies to the states in precisely the same manner as it applies to the federal government. The Supreme Court has not uniformly required this exact equivalence when determining the content of incorporated rights.
John Jones was arrested and questioned by state police. The officers told him they had no way of giving him a lawyer but one would be appointed if and when he went to court. Jones confessed after this statement. At trial he moved to suppress the confession, arguing the warning failed to match the federal Miranda script word for word. The court denied the motion because the statement conveyed the substance of the required rights.
Joanna Jung, a reporter for a local paper, sought access to a state criminal trial involving a minor victim. The trial court closed the proceedings under a state statute. Jung argued that the First Amendment right of access recognized in federal cases must apply jot for jot to the state proceeding. The state supreme court agreed and ordered the trial opened.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jennifer Jackson, an author, sued a magazine publisher for printing excerpts from her unpublished manuscript. The publisher claimed fair use under the federal copyright statute. Jackson argued that the fair use factors developed in federal precedent must apply jot for jot in state court. The court adopted the identical federal test and found no fair use.
Judy Jacobs, a political candidate, demanded space in the Miami Herald to reply to an editorial under a state right-of-reply law. The newspaper argued that the First Amendment protection against compelled speech recognized in federal cases must apply jot for jot to the state statute. The court struck down the law on that basis.
Jessica Jacobs was sentenced under a state recidivist statute to life without parole for a minor offense. She argued that the Eighth Amendment proportionality principle from federal cases must apply jot for jot to her state sentence. The court conducted the identical three-factor analysis and vacated the sentence.
Jacqueline Juarez was tried for murder in state court and raised an insanity defense. The state required her to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Juarez argued that the federal Due Process standard on burdens of proof must apply jot for jot. The court upheld the state allocation after applying the same federal test.
No. The Supreme Court has sometimes required identical application and sometimes permitted differences in content when a right is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Supporting sources
It means that the incorporated right must have exactly the same scope, content, and application when enforced against state governments as it does when enforced against the federal government.
Supporting sources
The Court has held that the Fifth Amendment grand jury right and the Seventh Amendment civil jury right are not incorporated at all, and for other rights the Court has sometimes allowed variations rather than demanding exact equivalence.
Supporting sources
…an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and Vignera's answers. This verbatim account of these proceedings contains no statement of any warnings given by the assistant district attorney. At Vignera's trial on a charge of first degree robbery, the detective testified…