United States ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy
351 U.S. 454 · Decided June 11, 1956 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
United States ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy was decided on June 11, 1956 by a vote of 6–3. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Harold H. Burton wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Extra-legal jury influences, prejudicial statements or evidence” in the Criminal Procedure area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 351 U.S. 454 · 76 S. Ct. 965 · 100 L. Ed. 2d 1331 · 1956 U.S. LEXIS 678
- Docket number
- 323
- Decided
- June 11, 1956
- Argued
- May 1, 1956
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority opinion
- Harold H. Burton
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Dissent | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Dissent | |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Justice Sherman Minton | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
United States ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy, Warden, et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1955-095, docket 1955-095-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Extra-legal jury influences, prejudicial statements or evidence”
- Costello v. United States
- Delli Paoli v. United States
- Alcorta v. Texas
- Napue v. Illinois
- Miller v. Pate
- Rundle v. Johnson
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Covey v. Town of SomersLaw held unconstitutional
- International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Goodrich
- Pennsylvania ex Rel. Herman v. Claudy
- Nelson v. City of New York
- Walker v. City of HutchinsonLaw held unconstitutional
- Reece v. Georgia
Same Term, same area (Criminal Procedure)
- Chessman v. Teets
- Pennsylvania ex Rel. Herman v. Claudy
- Rex Trailer Co., Inc. v. United States
- Rea v. United States
- Gibson v. Lockheed Aircraft Service, Inc.
- Costello v. United States
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error