The concept of applying “Due Process” to the states

John Hamm broke into a house, and hit the homeowner over the head and stole jewelry, a gun, a laptop, and credit cards. The homeowner was treated and released. Hamm was arrested by police two blocks from the house, based upon the descriiption given by the homeowner.
Hamm was initially arrested on charges of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. At arraignment, the judge asked him, “How do you plead to the charges against you”. Hamm says, “I’m not sure because I have not been told what I’m charged with.” Tersely, the judge states, “You know what you did, just before the cops caught you”?! Hamm says, “Well I know, I did wrong, but I’m not sure what crimes I’m guilty of. I would also like to talk to an attorney and ask some questions of those making these accusations against me.” The judge says, “Our upstanding police are making the acquisitions. Their word is ‘gold’ in this courtroom. And, you just confessed in my opinion, and that confession is good enough for me. I find you guilty of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. I sentence you to death by hanging, at 0400 tomorrow.” The judge banged his gavel and ordered the bailiff to remove John Hamm from his courtroom immediately.
An attorney in the Courtroom stands up and says, “Judge, you just violated all of Mr. Hamm’s due process rights. The judge says, “This ain’t no federal court, so we don’t have to follow the Bill of Rights. Now sit down before I throw you in jail for contempt”!
From the above scenario define and discuss, in relation to the scenario, the concept of applying “Due Process” to the states, via the doctrines of “Fundamental Fairness and selective and total Incorporation.”