Document: 494 U.S. 407 110 S.Ct. 1212 108 L.Ed.2d 347 Horace BUTLER, Petitionerv.Kenneth D. McKELLAR, Warden, et al. No. 88-6677. Argued Oct. 30, 1989. Decided March 5, 1990. Rehearing Denied April 23, See 495 915, 1941. Syllabus Six weeks after Pamela Lane was murdered, petitioner Butler arrested on an unrelated assault charge for which he retained counsel. While in custody, informed that a suspect Lane's murder. After receiving Miranda warnings, signed waiver of rights forms and made incriminating statements about the murder during interrogation. At his capital trial, court denied motion to suppress these statements, convicted sentenced death. conviction became final direct appeal, filed petition federal habeas relief, dismissed by District Court. The Court Appeals affirmed, rejecting argument Edwards v. Arizona, 451 477, 101 1880, 68 378, requires police, continuous refrain from all further questioning once accused invokes right counsel any offense. Subsequently, this handed down Arizona Roberson, 486 675, 2093, 100 704, held Fifth Amendment bars police-initiated interrogation following suspect's request context separate investigation. Butler's rehearing. It reasoned not entitled retroactive benefit Roberson. According court, Edwards-Roberson limitations police are only tangentially related truth-finding function. viewed those as part prophylactic protection created be "guidelines" law enforcement profession interrogation, while contrary present "guidelines," had been conducted strict accordance with established at time. Held: 1. Roberson announced "new rule," since its result dictated precedent existing time defendant's final, is therefore inapplicable cases collateral review under Teague Lane, 489 288, 109 1060, 103 334, Penry Lynaugh, 492 302, 2934, 106 256. fact majority said Roberson's case directly controlled conclusive purposes deciding whether new rule Teague. Courts frequently view their decisions "controlled" or "governed" prior opinions even when aware reasonable conclusions reached other courts. would have illogical grudging application decide it did extend § facts, since—as evidenced significant difference opinion several lower courts considered question previously—Roberson outcome susceptible debate among minds. Pp. 412-415. 2. does come within either exceptions available review. first exception—for places certain kinds primary, private individual conduct beyond power criminal law-making authority proscribe—is clearly inapplicable. proscribed instant murder, prosecution prohibited rule, address categorical guarantees accorded Constitution, see Penry, supra, 329, S.Ct., 2952. Nor establish principle second exception. scope observance procedures implicit concept ordered liberty—is limited without likelihood accurate seriously diminished. However, violation added restrictions investigatory may instead increase obtaining determination. 415-416. 846 F.2d 255 (CA4) affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered Court, WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, joined, Parts I, II, III BLACKMUN STEVENS, post, p. 417. John H. Blume, Columbia, petitioner. Donald J. Zelenka, respondents. Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 Petitioner death Lane. collaterally attacked way corpus. relied our decision 704 (1988), decided appeal. We held, however, generally applicable unless petitioner's final. 256 (1989); 334 (1989). hold ruling so claim two narrow general rule. 2 clerk convenience store near Charleston, South Carolina, last seen alive she left work riding moped late evening July 17, 1980. next day fishermen discovered body bridge, local minister found submerged pond behind church. 3 six later battery placed Charleston County Jail. invoking counsel, who appeared him bond hearing August 31, He unable make bond, returned county jail. attorney contend state relief proceedings hearing, told officers further. testified they remembered no such instruction. 4 Early morning September 1, 1980, taken jail Police station. then 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), indicated understood "waiver rights" forms. interrogated attorney's presence 5 offered explanations First, claimed friend, one White, killed sought help disposing moped. When interrogators skepticism over statement, tried again. upon car motioned her side road. She voluntarily accompanied drive nearby wooded area where engaged consensual sex. Afterwards threatened accuse rape realized getting home. maintained panicked, shot handgun, dumped off bridge. In version story, asserted White helped dispose took locations various events culminating 6 State indicted brought trial first-degree given were introduced into evidence. jury guilty and, proceeding, concluding committed commission rape. Supreme Carolina upheld Butler, 277 S.C. 452, 290 S.E.2d we certiorari. 459 932, 242, 74 191 (1982). unsuccessfully petitioned State's courts, State, 286 441, 813 (1985), again 474 1094, 869, 88 908 (1986). 7 May 1986, pursuant 28 U.S.C. 2254. As characterized raised "whether initiate knowing charge." App. 119. respondents' summary judgment. 8 On appeal United States Fourth Circuit, Aiken, argued 378 (1981), support argument, principally ex rel. Espinoza Fairman, 117 (CA7 1987). rejected Espinoza-based contention, finding Seventh Circuit's unpersuasive "dramatic" extension Edwards. F.2d, 258. 9 concluded preceded appropriate warnings voluntary protections. therefore, obtained constitutional Edwards' properly initiated entirely different intrude accused's previously invoked but offers opportunity weigh intelligently light changed circumstances. When, occurred case, freely waives provides nature, there justification undermining search truth suppressing statements. 259. affirmed dismissal petition, approximately month later, rehearing suggestion en banc. 10 same petitions, U.S., 682, 2098. reconsideration, original Circuit panel contention suppression investigation Although conceded substance conclusion "was cast immediate serious doubt" subsequent 864 24, 25 nevertheless determined panel, 25. They most accurately profession. Ibid. (citing 680-682, 2097-2098). unquestionably A Judges denied, dissent, granted certiorari, 490 1045, 1952, 104 422 (1989), now affirm. 11 Last Term both noncapital cases, rules will applied fall exceptions." Id., 313, 2944 at, 311-313, 1075-1076) infra, 415-416 (discussing inapplicability case). Referring Teague, reiterated that, general, announces rule" breaks ground imposes obligation Federal Government. 314, 2944. Put differently, indeed, more meaningfully " 'if final.' (quoting 301, 1070) (emphasis original). 12 explicitly overrules earlier holding obviously "breaks ground" "imposes obligation." vast reasoning previous inquiry difficult. Teague: 13 'The relevant frame reference . purpose whose [defendant] seeks, writ corpus available.' Mackey [v. States, 401 667, 91 1160, 1175, 404 (1971) (Harlan, concurring judgments part) ]. interest leaving litigation repose quite legitimately responsible defining outweigh some, many, instances competing readjudicating convictions according legal standards effect filed.' Given 'broad issues cognizable habeas,' 'sounder, adjudicating apply prevailing than seek [habeas] basis intervening changes interpretation.' '[T]he threat serves necessary additional incentive appellate throughout land manner consistent standards. order perform deterrence function, need prevailed place.' 306, 1073 (plurality opinion) added; some brackets original; internal citations omitted). observed: 14 "[I]n many ways intrusive enjoining [state] prosecutions continually forces marshal resources keep prison defendants trials appeals conformed then-existing Furthermore, recognized Engle Isaac, [456 107, 128, n. 33, 102 1558, 1572, 71 783 (1982),] '[s]tate understandably frustrated faithfully discover, commands.' also Brown Allen, 344 [443], 534, 73 397, 423, 97 L.Ed. 469 [ (1953) ] (Jackson, result) (state cannot 'anticipate, comply with, Court's due process requirements ascertain adhere prescribing them')." 310, 1075 15 validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations precedents though shown decisions. Cf. Leon, 468 897, 918-919, 3405, 3418-3419, 82 677 (1984) (assuming exclusionary "effectively deters misconduct incentives whole itself accord Amendment, expected, should applied, deter objectively activity"). contends is, petition. argues merely slightly set facts. Brief 9; Reply 18. position, points out 10. oral pointed Arizona's create "exception" interrogations concerning investigations. Tr. Oral Arg. 4. showed believed "logical compass" passim. 17 But says decision, indeed current being instance, controlling acknowledged previously. 679, 3, 2097, 3. That minds differing positions judges Circuits noted facts hold, rule." 18 remains comes Under exception, "a retroactively if 'certain proscribe.' 307, 692, 1180 part)). This exception put mildly, "categorical Constitution" prohibition imposition particular punishment class offenders. 19 "if 'those "implicit liberty." ' 311, 1076 Mackey, 693, 1181 (in turn quoting Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 325, 58 149, 152, 288 (1937) (Cardozo, J.))). noted, discerned latent danger relying solely famous language Palko: 20 "Were employ test more, doing little importing very terms incorporation. Reviving now, law, unnecessarily anachronistic. [W]e believe Harlan's concerns difficulty identifying existence value accuracy-enhancing procedural can addressed limiting 21 "Because operate premise central determination innocence guilt, unlikely components basic yet emerge." 312-313, 1076-1077 opinion). 22 Because diminish determination—indeed, likelihood—we conclude 23 judgment 24 Affirmed. whom MARSHALL joins, STEVENS join III, dissenting. manifested growing hostility toward Congress' authorize convictions,1 curtailing dramatically restructuring retroactivity doctrine. plurality declared entertaining prisoner's reach merits determines, threshold matter, favorable flow 'prevailing [the petitioner's] 689, 1178, Thus, exceptions, 1075-1077, "new" provide relief. stated qualifies final." 1070 26 Today, guise fine-tuning definition strips prisoners virtually meaningful constitutionality incarceration. deemed long correctness based "susceptible minds." Ante, 415. another way, prisoner secure showing court's rejection challenge invalid then-prevailing could defended jurist. With requirement, has finally succeeded thinly veiled crusade eviscerate regime. 27 * interpretation evolutionary process, analytical distinction between "prevailing" far sharp. must drawn carefully, nature adjudication served particular. purports draw guidance analysis advanced Harlan, ante, 413 supra ), simply ignores admonition "[t]he theory complex seemingly recognized." Desist 394 244, 263, 89 1030, 1041, 248 (1969) dissenting). Instead, embraces all-encompassing pausing articulate therefor. Result, reason, propels today. A. preclusion indefensible state-court rejections challenges manifest recent establishing Long before presumptively coercive custodial cease requests attorney. "If continues statement taken, heavy burden rests government demonstrate defendant knowingly waived privilege against self-incrimination appointed counsel." 475, 1628, (1966). situation detectives renewed series offenses, requested offenses. "reconfirm[ed] views [expressed Miranda, lend them substance, emphasize[d] inconsistent progeny authorities, reinterrogate custody 485, 1885. carefully circumstances suspect, validly resumption "when valid responded advised rights." 484, 1884. result, bright-line rule: "expressed desire deal through subject authorities until him, himself initiates communication, exchanges, conversations police." 484-485, 1884-1885. 29 "ask[ed] us craft 677, 2096. Noting involved "for want interrogate offense initial interrogation." declined, "unavailing" "attempts distinguishing factual setting here Edwards." 685, 2100. explained articulated reflected concern believes capable undergoing [custodial] advice presumed authorities' behest, own instigation, product 'inherently compelling pressures' purely choice suspect." 681, 2097-2098. concerned assuaged inability advice. Therefore matter interrogations. 2094; id., 684, 2099 ("[T]here reason assume mind investigation-specific"). likewise "attach[ed] significance officer know [Roberson] counsel," because "Edwards focuses 687, 2101. B 30 clear identical 1983 reconfirmed dissimilar salient way. principles jurisprudence already 1983. 31 Yet today classifies notwithstanding above, characterizing "outcome [as] For conclusion, appears rely below incorrectly predicted ought involves matter. reliance perplexing. might mean suggest number result. odd criterion "reasonableness." Its ad hoc, principled choosing agreement required "reasonable," ultimately bootstrap extent reaching courts' having done same. 32 hand, foreshadowing dissent's position erroneous, "reasonable" objective adjudication.2 purport identify explain case. peremptory fashion "[i]t Roberson." characterization mystifying, explanation 419-420. 33 discernible majority's discussion label favoring distinguished conceivable basis, factual.3 converse view, consist applying binding disputes imaginable entertain seeks narrowly defined, limits function reviewing equivalent "clearly erroneous" standard longer consider best final; rather, defer patently unreasonable.4 II 34 exceedingly broad rule"—and conversely law—betrays vision fundamentally odds recognized. undergirds progeny: "One rigid partisan Blackstone recognize all, grounded fundamental content change year year, meanings altered slowly subtly generation succeeds generation." Desist, 1041 every first-year student learns, means obeying perfunctorily holdings patterns. Rather, judge evaluate enunciated breadth application. thereby discern specific patterns fairly govern analogous demands exhibit "conceptual faithfulness" underlying precedents, just "decisional obedience" precise unique 266, 1042, (employing Fortas' terminology). predict reformulations excuse well 35 suggests obliquely adoption 'new rule' [that] precedents," 414—which still serve "deterrence function" animating begs question: what? embraced today, petitions challenging claims erroneous. So best, completely claims. essentially save outright "illogical" defiance precisely point, guarantees—no how cramped unfaithful precedent—will oversight system. prosecutors surely offer each free 'disregard plain adopt let's-wait-until-it's-decided [by Court] approach.' Johnson, 457 537, 561, 2579, 2593, 202 (1982) 277, 1052 (Fortas, dissenting)); cf. 2593 (rejecting "all rulings resolving unsettled questions nonretroactive [to pending otherwise,] close officials err behavior").5 36 never endorsed deterrent review: always expected encourage adjudicate "correctly," "reasonably." See, e.g., 306-307, 1073-1074 (deterrence rationale "[r]eview determine correct conviction") added) Solem Stumes, 465 638, 653, 1338, 1347, 79 579 (Powell, judgment)). And, "correct" thought require anticipate reasonably foreseeable applications principles. 549, 2586 ("When settled situations, real [of retroactivity] arisen. foregone applies material way").6 37 Indeed, chief proponent designed erroneous claims, fails presage settings precedent. Harlan "appl[ying] well-established closely law." 1041. "say assurance ruled differently" (i.e., favor) 264, added). contrast, opposite presumption; holds say favor time.7 Thus purported progenitor position. 38 Most significantly, promised defeats scheme proceedings. Congress perceived potential "inadequacy raise preserve [and was] concern[ed] unsympathetic federally Kaufman 217, 225-226, 1068, 1073-1074, 227 (1969).8 intended "[t]hreat habeas" "serv[e] standards," (citations omitted), petitioners remedy unlawful deprivations liberty interests fresh full Article court. Fay Noia, 372 391, 424, 83 822, 841, 837 (1963), "the policy [underlying 2254(a) is] personal shall fullest plenary judicial review" also, Kaufman, 228, ("Congress availability mechanism attack. afed eral forum fair consideration claims"). established, deference attack.9 proper Frankfurter, congressional requirement [that the] it, what procedurally fairness, misconceived right." 443, 508, 446, (1953). thus de novo proceedings.10 denies role envisioned remedying unreasonable rather ones. 39 Moreover, insistence "federal 'last say' respect law" proceedings, 225, 1073, satisfied jurisdiction directly. "Supreme responsibility too great permit misstep accepted Hence grant certiorari erroneous." R. Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Practice 4.17, 221 (6th ed. 1986).11 1867 "exten[d] bespoke unwillingness trust lone avenue vindication strictures" Fourteenth Amendment. Brennan, Habeas Corpus Prisoners: An Exercise Federalism, Utah L.Rev. 426 (1961). today's foreclosing alternative "avenue vindication," overrides will, leaves I share lack confidence despite defects processes leading sentencing, languish jail—and others like die—because wrong.12 40 apparently finds injustice acceptable 'interest repose.' 1073). do. thing preclude asserting least significantly engenders possibility 'continually forc[ing] standards.' 413-414 1075). resource scarcity justify protect consequences retrying resentencing conform suffering defects. "This finality, standing alone, sufficient compromise 2254." Reed Ross, 15, 2901, 2910, (1984). Until 41 'responsible writ.' omitted).13 majority, Members often pride themselves reluctance play "activist" infringing legislative prerogatives, hesitate dismantle prisoners. Hereafter, egregious flouted arguable basis. dissent curtailment writ's capacity securing liberty. "For abuse casually lightly guaranteed involve morally unworthy. fashioning justified wiping practical efficacy conferred Courts." Brown, 498-499, 441-442 (opinion J.). IV 42 Even proceeding protections defined vacate sentence. my penalty cruel unusual punishment. Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 227, 96 2909, 2950, 49 859 (1976). Title "shall behalf person Constitution laws treaties States." If issued, course evidence proposition "reasonable minds" results pattern (1988). From perspective, egregiously wrong elsewhere practically trips evident haste broadest possible Saffle Parks, 491, 1257, 1261, 415 (1990) (habeas proposes favorably "inform, control govern," do "compel [petitioner] seeks"). limitation creates systemic bias system procedure expand regime, lose issue (indeed, increasing frequency, attempt defend denying overruled modified). Today's Saffle, understandings habeas, starkly illustrate symmetry—and fairness. Particularly hinge "reasonability" head count similar 420-421, certainly adopting, engaging independent merits, Such follow-the-leader insulated analogy 414 (referencing (1984)), unsound, beg deterred. evidentiary exclusion ordinarily turns illegal technically warrant acting good faith magistrate acted scope." 920, 3419. assigned task execute warrant, independently compliance substantive standards: "It magistrate's officer's allegations probable cause so, comporting form ordinary probable-cause sufficient. '[O]nce issues, literally nothing policeman seeking law.' 921, 3419 (citation circumstances, behavior higher dutiful obedience order. "objectively activity," 919, 3418, expect officers. previously, 424 page, understanding embodied Hence, selecting flouting described [judicial] activity." Leon interpretation, proffered flawed. borrow doing, embrace "reasonableness" adjudication. Compare 264-265, 1041-1042, dissenting) (even overrule unavailable become overruling foreshadowed cases), 1260 (petitioner "state considering [petitioner's] felt compelled Constitution") popularly elected occasion experience political institutional pressures, life-tenured insulated, advance enforcement. ("Although remote discover redress raised, likely fail appreciate reject hand"); Rose Mitchell, 443 545, 563, 99 2993, 3004, 61 739 (1979) ("There strong reveal flaws appreciated perhaps day-to-day operation able defective"). 458, 407, (for carries [only] weight practice gives resort issues"). intent differential treatment determinations; former latter presumption correctness. Townsend Sain, 293, 745, 770 specified district hearings presented. discretionary, may, reliably findings fact." 318, 760. clear, "may court's] law. judge's duty independently. habeas." 1966, amended statute add 2254(d), almost verbatim codification delineated in" Sain. Miller Fenton, 104, 111, 445, 450, 405 (1985). elevated exhortation Sain factfinding status "mandatory correctness." 111-112, 450-451. reaffirmed but, determinations petitioners' 112, 450 ("subsidiary questions" surrounding confession correctness, voluntariness "is determination"). Neil Biggers, 409 188, 191, 93 375, (1972) (as "amended 2244(b) [generally proscribing successive petitions] shields senseless repetition endangering entitled, aside, redetermination corpus"). Watt Alaska, 259, 275, 1673, 1682, 80 (1981) (STEVENS, concurring) ("Most certainly, sit primarily perceive mistakes tribunals"); Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 616-617, 94 2437, 2446-2447, 341 (1974) ("This [direct certiorari] proceedings] discretionary depends numerous factors asked review"). limit alleged thwarts effective threatens retard heretofore robust evolve repeated fear avoid constructions doctrine, reflect develop novel sophisticated guarantees. run, evolution federalist foster suffer. "Federalism device realizing concepts decency fairness justice lying base civil institutions. goals approached administration puts path directed invasions land." 442 Cover Aleinikoff, Dialectical Federalism: Yale L.J. 1035 (1977). addition, healthy regime enables await difficult problems issues. together sensitive litigated (a relatively small category cases) reasons discussed inclined institutionally interpret expansively. Rather varied them, few embracing interpretations. constrict percolation allow[ing] period exploratory experimentation ends nationally Estreicher Sexton, Managerial Theory Responsibilities: Empirical Study, 59 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 716 withdraws unconstitutional confinement, disrupts ability structure contemplative decisionmaking. Frankfurter: "Congress governing exclusively These tribunals Constitution." 499, 442. "[But Congress] fit give inquire [I]t disregard expressly deny access courts." 508-510, 446-448.

Category: 0