In Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, the U.S Supreme Court considered whether a prosecutor's closing remarks during a murder trial had denied the defendant his constitutional right to due process. The prosecutor suggested that the defense counsel was trying to create reasonable doubt and get their client off on technicalities rather than focusing on innocence or guilt. Furthermore, he implied that if acquitted, the defendant could be tried again for first-degree murder instead of second-degree murder as in this case. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the conviction despite these comments. The U.S Supreme Court affirmed this decision by a 6-3 vote, ruling that while such statements were inappropriate and should not have been made, they did not rise to level of denying due process under Fourteenth Amendment standards established in previous cases like Brady v Maryland (1963). Justice Potter Stewart wrote for majority saying it was important to consider context including curative instructions given by judge immediately after objectionable statement which mitigated potential prejudice against defendant.

In the dissenting opinion for Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, Justice Douglas argued that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were not harmless error but rather a violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that these remarks had an undue influence on the jury and could have swayed their decision-making process in favor of conviction. The justice believed that such misconduct by a representative of the state should be treated with utmost seriousness to uphold fairness and integrity in criminal trials, regardless if it was intentional or inadvertent. Furthermore, he criticized majority’s reliance on Chapman v California (1967) as misplaced since this case did not involve federal habeas corpus review where standards are stricter than direct appeals from state courts like Chapman was about.