There is no doubt that the first did not apply to the states since it specifically stated that Congress... and there is also no doubt that states could, and some did, establish a state religion nor that they could abridge freedom of the press and expression.
Barron v. Baltimore stated for the first time that the amendments did not apply to states and localities. But to believe that states did not have to provide trial by jury or could search without warrants or violate prohibitions against self-incrimination is a bit dicey.
I was using "apply" more as "refer to."
So far so good. Where then, point to the place in the Cons., do you find that states have to abide by rule x, or rule y in criminal justice matters? Art 1. sec 10 contains the prohibitions on state actions, and you will find nothing there concerning crim. just. Remember the times the cons. was ratified (and if you know b. vs. balt. then you've got a good start) -- the people who ratified the cons were in no way shape or form afraid of their own states. The idea that they thought that they needed a cons to tell them how to try their accused is simply ridiculous.