held that the defendant's right to confront the witnesses (the alleged multiple wives) was forfeited by the wrongdoing of the defendant in procuring their absence. Cruel and unusual punishment In Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Court held that execution by firing squad was not cruel and unusual punishment. Double Jeopardy Clause In Kring v. Missouri (1883), the Court held that it violated double jeopardy for a statute to attempt to abrogate the rule that a guilty plea to second degree murder is an implied acquittal for first-degree murder. In Bohanan v. Nebraska (1886), without reaching the merits (but only deciding a motion to dismiss), the Court held that it had the authority to consider whether a second murder conviction in state court constituted double jeopardy. Due process In Brooks v. Missouri (1888), the Court held that a state rule requiring a new trial motion within four days of the verdict did not violate the Due Process Clause. Equal protection and jury selection Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) and Bush v. Kentucky (1883) reversed convictions because of racial exclusion in the jury system. Hayes v. Missouri (1887) rejected an equal protection challenge to a statute that provided the prosecution 8 peremptory challenges in small towns and 15 in large cities. Ex post facto law In Kring v. Missouri (1883), the Court also found that the statute violated the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws (the plea was entered before the state constitutional amendment was passed). This alternative holding was overruled by Collins v. Youngblood (1990). Grand Jury Clause In Ex parte Wilson (1885) and United States v. Petit (1885), the Court held that hard labor is an infamous punishment and therefore that the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment attached. In Mackin v. United States (1886), the Court held that an authorized sentence of two years imprisonment (even without hard labor) was sufficiently infamous to require a grand jury. In Ex parte Bain (1887) and Parkinson v. United States (1887), the Court held that an authorized sentence of one year in the penitentiary was sufficiently infamous. In Hurtado v. California (1884), the Court held that the Grand Jury Clause was not incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Hurtado remains good law, and—along with the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment and (maybe) the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment—the Grand Jury Clause remains the only criminal