PRIOR TO 1961, ONLY 8 OF THE 26 PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS HAD BEEN APPLIED TO THE STATES: ALL OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S EMINENT DOMAIN PROVISION, AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF A PUBLIC TRIAL. TWO OTHER PROVISIONS, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND THE EIGHT AMENDMENT'S BAN ON CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, WERE QUESTIONABLY APPLICABLE. BY THE RETIREMENT OF WARREN IN 1969, ONLY SEVEN BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEES REMAINED INAPPLICABLE AGAINST THE STATES. IN 1960, THE AVERAGE AMERICAN PROBABLY BELIEVED THAT WERE HE OR SHE TO BE CHARGED BY A STATE WITH A NONCAPITAL FELONY, THE CONSTITUTION WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY BE ACCORDED THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, A JURY TRIAL, AND THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD PREVENT THE STATE FROM PLACING THEM IN A SECOND JEOPARDY WERE THE FIRST PROSECUTION UNSUCCESSFUL. THIS AVERAGE CITIZEN WOULD, HOWEVER, HAVE BEEN WRONG BECAUSE THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED NOT AS A GREAT CIVIL LIBERTARIAN MEASURE BUT AS A PROTECTION AGAINST AN ALL-POWERFUL NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THE WARREN COURT'S MANY LANDMARK EXTENSIONS OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL AND DEFENDANT RIGHTS STRICTURES TO THE STATE LEVEL ARE EXAMINED. DECISIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, COMPULSORY DUE PROCESS, RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL, RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, AND SANCTIONS AGAINST EXCESSIVE BAIL ARE EXAMINED. THE CASE OF MIRANDA VERSUS THE STATE OF ARIZONA IS GIVEN PARTICULAR ATTENTION. RELEVANT COURT DECISIONS ARE REFERENCED, AND TABLES PROVIDING A CHRONOLOGY OF THE SELECTIVE INCORPORATION OF BILL OF RIGHTS PROVISIONS ARE INCLUDED. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (KBL)