CaseTrail

Destefano v. Woods

392 U.S. 631 · Decided June 17, 1968 · 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

Destefano v. Woods was decided on June 17, 1968 by a vote of 5–4. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The decision was issued per curiam (an unsigned opinion of the Court). SCDB classifies its main issue as “Retroactivity of new rights” in the Criminal Procedure area.

Read the opinion

Case details

Citations
392 U.S. 631 · 88 S. Ct. 2093 · 20 L. Ed. 2d 1308 · 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1144
Docket number
559
Decided
June 17, 1968
Court era
Warren Court
Decision type
Per curiam (no oral argument)
Disposition
Affirmed
Outcome for petitioner
The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
Vote
5–4
Opinion assigned by
Earl Warren
How the case arrived
Certiorari
Legal provision
Sixth Amendment (right to trial by jury)
Type of law
Constitutional amendment
Decision direction (SCDB)
Conservative what this means

How the Justices voted

JusticeVoteSeparate writing
Justice Hugo L. BlackDissent
Justice William O. DouglasDissentWrote an opinion
Chief Justice Earl WarrenMajority
Justice John M. Harlan IIJurisdictional dissentWrote an opinion
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.Majority
Justice Potter StewartJurisdictional dissent
Justice Byron R. WhiteMajority
Justice Abe FortasMajority
Justice Thurgood MarshallMajority

Full case caption

Destefano v. Woods, Sheriff

SCDB identifiers: case 1967-185, docket 1967-185-01.

Other cases on “Retroactivity of new rights”

See all

Cases on the same legal provision: Sixth Amendment (right to trial by jury)

Same Term, same area (Criminal Procedure)

See all

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