Connecticut v. Johnson
460 U.S. 73 · Decided February 23, 1983 · 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
Connecticut v. Johnson was decided on February 23, 1983 by a vote of 5–4. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the opinion announcing the judgment of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Extra-legal jury influences, jury instructions” in the Criminal Procedure area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 460 U.S. 73 · 103 S. Ct. 969 · 74 L. Ed. 2d 823 · 1983 U.S. LEXIS 131
- Docket number
- 81-927
- Decided
- February 23, 1983
- Argued
- October 13, 1982
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Judgment of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Harry A. Blackmun
- Opinion assigned by
- William J. Brennan Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Extra-legal jury influences, jury instructions
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Judgment of the Court | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Dissent | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Dissent |
Full case caption
Connecticut v. Johnson
SCDB identifiers: case 1982-031, docket 1982-031-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Extra-legal jury influences, jury instructions”
- Koehler v. Engle
- James v. Kentucky
- Francis v. Franklin
- Rose v. Clark
- Sandstrom v. Montana
- Kentucky v. Whorton
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Marshall v. Lonberger
- Hewitt v. Helms
- Olim v. Wakinekona
- Kolender v. LawsonLaw held unconstitutional
- City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City v. AshcroftLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Criminal Procedure)
- Anderson v. Harless
- Wyrick v. Fields
- Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy
- Missouri v. Hunter
- Marshall v. Lonberger
- South Dakota v. Neville
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