Document: 542 U.S. 406 BEARD, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.v.BANKS No. 02-1603. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 24, 2004. Decided June After respondent's murder conviction and death sentence were upheld by the Pennsylvania Court, this decided Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367, McKoy North Carolina, 494 433, in which it held invalid capital sentencing schemes requiring juries to disregard mitigating factors not found unanimously. state postconviction claim was rejected State on merits, he turned federal courts. Ultimately, Third Circuit applied analytical framework set forth Teague Lane, 489 288, under habeas petitioners may avail themselves new rules constitutional criminal procedure outside two narrow exceptions; concluded that did announce a rule therefore could be retroactively; granted respondent relief. Held: Because announced does fall within either exception, its cannot retroactively. Pp. 411-420. (a) analysis involves three-step process court determine when defendant's became final; whether, given legal landscape at time final, sought is actually new; and, if so, whether falls exceptions nonretroactivity. P. 411. (b) Respondent's final before decided. The normal for determining conviction's finality retroactivity review—when availability direct appeal courts has been exhausted filing certiorari petition elapsed or timely finally denied—applies here. That considered merits collateral review change his date subsequent Mills. 411-413. (c) rule. In reaching conclusion McKoy, relied line cases beginning with Lockett Ohio, 438 586. Lockett's general sentencer must allowed consider any evidence thought support require unanimously, but mandate Each (and McKoy) only obstructions sentencer's ability evidence. Mills' innovation rests shift focus individual jurors. Moreover, there no need guess reasonable jurists have differed as compelled Four dissenting Justices reasoned because nothing prevented jury from hearing evidence, control; three remotely broke ground, applies exception. 413-416. (d) There argument first exception And repeatedly emphasized limited scope second exception—for "`watershed implicating fundamental fairness accuracy proceeding,'" O'Dell Netherland, 521 151, 157—which "`is clearly meant apply small core observance those procedures that... are implicit concept ordered liberty,'" ibid. This yet find providing guidance what might do repeatedly, only, referred right-to-counsel Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, "alter[ed] [the Court's] understanding bedrock procedural elements essential proceeding," Sawyer Smith, 497 227, 242. hesitated hold less sweeping See, e. g., supra. While avoid potentially arbitrary impositions sentence, "none primacy centrality adopted Gideon," Saffle Parks, 484, 495. It narrowly works Court's "`understanding elements'" fairness, O'Dell, supra, 167. 416-420. 316 F. 3d 228, reversed remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed opinion, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, joined, post, p. 420. 423. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR THIRD CIRCUIT Ronald Eisenberg argued cause petitioners. With him briefs Scott Gartley, Thomas W. Dolgenos, Lynne Abraham. Albert J. Flora, Jr., respondent. brief Basil G. Russin, Joseph Cosgrove, Matthew Lawry, Maureen Kearney Rowley.* JUSTICE THOMAS Court. 1 367 (1988), 433 (1990), case, we can corpus defendant whose 1987. Under our 288 (1989), exceptions. We conclude Teague's 2 * More than 20 years ago, convicted respondent, George Banks, 12 counts first-degree murder, trial sentenced death. facts case detail decision affirming review. See Commonwealth 513 Pa. 318, A. 2d (1987). Direct ended denied October 5, Banks Pennsylvania, 484 873. Approximately eight months later, handed down Mills, Constitution forbids States imposing requirement potential factor unanimously decision. 3 Respondent pursued relief theory instructions verdict form violated principle, merits. 540 143, 656 467 (1995). then Although District relief, Horn, 63 Supp. 525 (MD 1999), Appeals 271 527 (2001). decision, declined question retroactively necessary, Appeals' view, had itself 3d, 543. summarily reversed, holding "in addition performing required AEDPA Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996], considering conduct threshold issue properly raised state." Horn 536 266, 272 (2002) (per curiam) (Banks I). 4 On remand, retroactive application 228 (CA3 2003). recognized primary task rule, this, turn, ascertain precedent existing dictated 233-235. From decisions 586 (1978), Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104 (1982), their progeny, distilled "Eighth Amendment prohibits barrier consideration evidence." 239. characterized "merely recogniz[ing] perceived unanimity constitute one such unconstitutional barrier," 240. Accordingly, reinstated remainder previous again granting sentence.1 5 Commonwealth's decide unreasonably law error case. 539 987 (2003). Lockett/Eddings supports compel also unable particular, "watershed rul[e] proceeding." 495 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). reverse judgment Appeals.2 II 6 Teague, determination process. Lambrix Singletary, 520 518, (1997). First, final. Second, "legal existed," Graham Collins, 506 461, 468 (1993), ask Constitution, interpreted existing, compels Saffle, 488. is, "new." Finally, new, Lambrix, 527.3 7 Ordinarily, ascertaining becomes poses difficulties: convictions "for purposes writ denied." Caspari Bohlen, 510 383, 390 (1994). Clay States, 537 522, Respondent, however, urges different He argues that, view unique "relaxed waiver rule"—pursuant merits—his 1995 against him. Brief 25-31. practice forfeited claims cases, insists, "conventional notions `finality'" apply. Id., 27. 8 past, did, fact, rule" penalty cases. DeHart, 25, 650 38, 48 (1994); Billa, 168, 181, 555 835, 842 (1989). But practice, abandoned, see Albrecht, 554 31, 44-46, 720 693, 700 (1998), "was absolute, discretionary," Freeman, 573 532, 557, n. 9, 827 385, 400, 9 (2003) (describing past practice). Notably, expressly stated, would decline Peterkin, 538 455, 465, 4, 649 121, 126, A court's discretionary "`practice' [of] declin[ing] ordinary principles cases," 44, 2d, 700, render sentences longer subject nonfinal purposes. Such "final" despite possibility might, discretion, enforce an available bar choose law. Cf. Wainwright Sykes, 72, 81-91 (1977). 10 reflects misunderstanding Teague. nonretroactivity principle acts limitation power grant "habeas . prisoner[s]." Caspari, S., 389. why "must [a] claim," ibid., whenever raises question, point explained I, 271. id., 271-272 (explaining erred focusing treatment claim). 11 should make clear protects judgments States' interest quite apart As explained: "In many ways more intrusive enjoining prosecutions, cf. Younger Harris, 401 37, 43-54 (1971), continually forces marshal resources order keep prison defendants trials appeals conformed then-existing standards." 310. 13 short, without modification, agree 235. B 14 assay 1987 "whether later [Mills] precedent—whether, unlawfulness [respondent's] apparent all jurists." 527-528. jurors 444; 374-375; 384 (vacating gave rise "substantial probability they precluded evidence" unanimously).4 15 conclusion, (1978) (plurality opinion), (1982). Lockett, plurality struck Ohio's statute "considering, factor," certain "aspect[s] character record [certain] circumstances offense proffer[ed] basis death." 604. majority embraced Eddings. There, confronted situation found, "as matter [that it] even [potentially mitigating] 113. 113-115. Skipper South 476 1, 8-9 (1986) (holding cannot, through evidentiary rules, exclude relevant consideration). 16 noted depend source 375. asserted "[t]he same [rule apply] respect single juror's holdout vote finding presence circumstance." Ibid. 441-443 (quoting analysis). 17 generalized (that evidence) McKoy. here specifically think 18 guess. four dissented, reasoning proffered, control. 394 (opinion J.). explaining "`the established Lockett' support" 464 J.); 466 ("In simply irrelevant us ."); 452-453 (KENNEDY, concurring judgment) (noting "stretche[d]" "beyond proper bounds"). dissent stressed move juror. 465-466 Indeed, prior none addressed jurors, see, Hitchcock Dugger, 481 393 (1987), trend continued after (1990); Penry Lynaugh, 492 302 (1989); Franklin 487 164 (1988). 19 governs how considers considers. dissent's governed latter former. For distinction, day. (assuming informed) sought-for "instruct sympathy." 490. observed: "Parks asks create relating, permitted making simple logical difference between govern guide weighing decision." 21 Thus, although — conceived high level generality—could point. follows fortiori Mills.5 Given brand attention paid relevance what/how distinction drawn (which distinguishes line), "br[o]k[e] ground," 301.6 review, unless, course, C 22 forbidding punishment "of [or to] prohibiting category class status offense." Penry, 330; 157 (1997).7 proceeding.'" Graham, 478). 23 "`it liberty.'" And, qualifying "'would so central accurate innocence guilt is] unlikely components basic due emerge,'" 478 313), come surprise Perhaps reason, attempt argue qualifies rebut petitioners' not, Petitioners 23-26. 24 335 (1963) (right counsel), 495; Gilmore Taylor, 508 333, 364 (1993) (Blackmun, dissenting). overruled Betts Brady, (1942), noting "made abrupt break well-considered precedents." 344. continued: 25 "Lawyers prosecute everywhere deemed protect public's orderly society. Similarly, few charged crime, indeed, who fail hire best lawyers get prepare present defenses. government hires money defend strongest indications widespread belief necessities, luxuries. right crime counsel fair some countries, ours. very beginning, national constitutions laws laid great emphasis substantive safeguards designed assure impartial tribunals every stands equal noble ideal realized poor man face accusers lawyer assist him." (emphasis added). 26 344-345 Powell Alabama, 287 45, 68-69 (1932)). Gideon, say, 242 27 By contrast, example, Simmons 512 154 inform ineligible parole prosecution future dangerousness. petitioner's "`on par' (1963)," emphasizing "the [nature] affirmative felony cases." 28 petitioner use Caldwell Mississippi, 472 320, 323 (1985) Eighth bars imposition led believe responsibility ultimate rested elsewhere). too give effect effectively withheld information sentencer. Sawyer, 242-245. acknowledged intended enhance sentencing." 244. effected incremental change, "this systemic enhancing reliability `absolute prerequisite fairness.'" 314). (concluding exception). 29 recognize avoidance motivated described troubling situations theoretically occur absent Eleven twelve could, six existed, juror nevertheless force sentence. existed these outweighed aggravators, present, return 373-374; 439-440 examples). Imposition circumstances, reasoned, "would `height arbitrariness.'" 440 374). 454 judgment). 30 Quite obviously, possibility. "[a]ll jurisprudence concerning directed toward enhancement sense," fact removes remote infliction suffice bring 243. 31 However laudable be, "it Gideon." fairly "our elements" fairness. 167 III 32 neither remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 33 ordered. Notes: Kent Scheidegger Criminal Justice Legal Foundation amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs amici affirmance American Civil Liberties Union et al. Larry Yackle, Joshua Dratel, Steven R. Shapiro, Stefan Presser; Association Defense Lawyers Louis M. Natali, Peter Goldberger. Judge Sloviter wrote separately express her thatMills qualified F.3d 253-254 2003) posited Pennsylvania's "unique relaxed doctrine 256. reach concluding Rules asTeague's "are accurately [Teague's] bar." Schriro Summerlin, ante, 352, 4. infra, 416, 7. turns it, note arguable "Mills fully emerge until issued (1990). 459-463 (SCALIA, inquiry whetherreasonable differ suggest mere existence suffices show new. drawing fromLockett prohibited jury's evidence," 241-243 added), acknowledging analysis, automatically extend arguably analogous contexts. last differ. above, viewed toTeague's bar. 3, 34 whom BREYER join, dissenting. 35 supported outcome "`"height arbitrariness."'" Ante, 419. unquestionably today, I equally reaches reads "new 408. my represented straightforward longstanding Fourteenth Amendments tolerate syste[m] permit[s] wantonly freakishly imposed." Furman Georgia, 408 238, 310 (1972) (Stewart, concurring). 36 dispute concerned read well unless agreed particular 384. resulting requirement, concluded, "allow[ed] `holdout' prevent other 375). When decided, novel about permitting death-prone control entire arbitrary. acknowledgment natural outgrowth condemning mandatory penalty, Roberts Louisiana, 431 633 (1977) curiam); Woodson 428 280 (1976) recognizing violates Amendment,1 Zant Stephens, 462 862, 874 (1983); Gregg 153, 189 (1976); Furman, supra; mandating guarantee full (1982); opinion). judgment, kind arbitrariness enable favor outweigh forbearance violate centuries. Rejecting manifestly unfair covered 301-302 affirms permit blatant exceptions.2 37 leaves impose circumstances. reasons identified Circuit, 527, 543-551 (2001); 247 (leaving place portions earlier particularly form, 549-550, answer affirmative. 38 affirm Appeals. 39 GINSBURG joins, 40 join STEVENS'S add word way relation BREYER'S 358, began 41 states purpose applying invokes perspective "`all jurists,'" 413 528 (1997)); 414-416. acknowledges, standard objective, actual disagreement among Members conclusively establish rule's novelty. 5; Wright West, 505 277, 304 (1992) (O'CONNOR, objectively jurist cousin common law's person, job judicially determined litigants court. function reasonable-jurist distinguish developments judges anticipated expected foresee. 42 engages ongoing defining characteristics jurist, identifying arguments accept. characteristic stake degree risk erroneous Mills's essentially discusses Summerlin: inaccurate putative expression conscience community life death,'" 360 (dissenting opinion) Witherspoon Illinois, 391 510, 519 (1968)). Summerlin demanding espousal debatable newness 43 STEVENS says, based upon circumstance spare life, blocked them doing surely egregious failure public accurately. 420-421 presented ultimately deem reasonable, thus immunize attack, least stage, reading pre-Mills precedents accepts errors Maryland's produced. 44 concludes compared "shift[ed] focus" "obstructions abilities "individual jurors" basis. 414. approach gives considerable weight jurist's capacity pick out material differences sets facts, relatively substance underlying follow 238 curiam). inconsistent progeny,* BREYER's 362-365, 365-366, am now convinced much importance enough accuracy. Appeals, respectfully dissent. KENNEDY made precisely concurrence inMcKoy (1990): "Application `intuitively disturbing.' important, represents system capricious. result arbitrariness.' description, fits `caprice,' `an unpredictable fashion,' `arbitrary' `freakish' means." Supporting reading, inMills challenge majority's assumption unambiguously unconstitutional; understood "to mark `no' each [had agree." (REHNQUIST, dissenting) occasion constitutionality conceded 459 ("Although language suggesting contravene , plainly decided"). author, Blackmun, disagreed however: "[T]he Maryland [at Mills] susceptible plausible interpretations, interpretations unconstitutional." 445 (concurring original). Blackmun better argument, assumes dissenters failed requirements rather they, too, condemned requirements, overall remains same: executing believes appropriate "so wanto[n] freakis[h]" Amendments, concurring), violation today. See,e. 157-166 (1997) (1994), misled eligibility prosecutor dangerousness); 527-539 Espinosa Florida, 1079 curiam), Florida vague aggravating taints judge's sentence); Stringer Black, 503 222, 243-247 (SOUTER, (arguing Maynard Cartwright, 356 others new).

Category: 0