InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Carchman, Mercer County Prosecutor v. Nash

473 U.S. 716 · No. 84-776 · 1984 term · Burger Court

Decided Jul 2, 1985 · argued Apr 22, 1985

Criminal procedure · Subconstitutional fair procedure: presentation, admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence

Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Reversed. Carchman, Mercer County Prosecutor won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.

Carchman, Mercer County Prosecutor was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1984 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanStevensBlackmunPowellWhiteO'ConnorBurgerRehnquist

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Carchman, Mercer County ProsecutorState (New Jersey)
Respondent
NashProbationer, or parolee
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
A federal court and a state court had ruled differently
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Interstate Compact
Kind of law
Other
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jul 2, 1985DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed. Carchman, Mercer County Prosecutor won.
  2. Apr 22, 1985ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). A federal court and a state court had ruled differently.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New Jersey U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

17 other argued cases since 1946 on subconstitutional fair procedure: presentation, admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence, newest first.

  1. Musacchio v. United States577 U.S. 237Jan 25, 2016 · 577 U.S. 237Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  2. Johnnie Corley v. United States556 U.S. 303Apr 6, 2009 · 556 U.S. 303Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  3. Moises Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon548 U.S. 331Jun 28, 2006 · 548 U.S. 331Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  4. Johnny Lynn Old Chief v. United States519 U.S. 172Jan 14, 1997 · 519 U.S. 172Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  5. United States v. Anthony Salerno, et al.505 U.S. 317Jun 19, 1992 · 505 U.S. 317Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  6. United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.504 U.S. 36May 4, 1992 · 504 U.S. 36Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  7. Cuyler, Correctional Superintendent, et al. v. Adams449 U.S. 433Jan 21, 1981 · 449 U.S. 433Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  8. Rogers v. United States422 U.S. 35Jun 17, 1975 · 422 U.S. 35Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  9. Haines v. Kerner et al.404 U.S. 519Jan 13, 1972 · 404 U.S. 519Criminal procedure7–0Unanimous band
  10. Bushnell v. Ellis, Corrections Director366 U.S. 418May 22, 1961 · 366 U.S. 418Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  11. Stirone v. United States361 U.S. 212Jan 11, 1960 · 361 U.S. 212Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  12. United States v. Shotwell Manufacturing Co. et al.355 U.S. 233Dec 16, 1957 · 355 U.S. 233Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  13. United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy et al. v. Murff, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service355 U.S. 169Dec 9, 1957 · 355 U.S. 169Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  14. Opper v. United States348 U.S. 84Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 84Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
  15. North v. Florida346 U.S. 932Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 932Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  16. Blau v. United States340 U.S. 332Jan 15, 1951 · 340 U.S. 332Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
  17. Michelson v. United States335 U.S. 469Dec 20, 1948 · 335 U.S. 469Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.