week after the incident. 6 . 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 286, 492 F.2d at 552. 7 . See, e.g., Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 530-534, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 1787-91, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975); United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358, 365, 95 S.Ct. 1006, 1011, 43 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 340-343, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1021-22, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479, 91 S.Ct. 547, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) (plurality opinion of Harlan, J.); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717-18, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-188, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). 8 . Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937). 9 . See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969) (<HOLDING>). 10 . See cases cited note 7 supra. 11 . See
holding that the confrontation clause is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding double jeopardy clause applicable to civil penalties under the false claims act holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment