Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 607

529US2

Unit: $U52

[09-26-01 10:36:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

532

CARMELL v. TEXAS

Opinion of the Court

Justice Chase viewed all ex post facto laws as “manifestly
unjust and oppressive.” Calder, 3 Dall., at 391. Likewise,
Blackstone condemned them as “cruel and unjust,” 1 Com-
mentaries on the Laws of England 46 (1765), as did every
state constitution with a similar clause, see n. 25, infra. As
Justice Washington explained in characterizing “[t]he injus-
tice and tyranny” of ex post facto laws:

“Why did the authors of the constitution turn their at-
tention to this subject, which, at the ﬁrst blush, would
appear to be peculiarly ﬁt to be left to the discretion of
those who have the police and good government of the
State under their management and control? The only
answer to be given is, because laws of this character
are oppressive, unjust, and tyrannical; and, as such, are
condemned by the universal sentence of civilized man.”
Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 266 (1827).

In short, the Ex Post Facto Clause was designed as “an addi-
tional bulwark in favour of the personal security of the sub-
ject,” Calder, 3 Dall., at 390 (Chase, J.), to protect against
“the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny,”
The Federalist No. 84, p. 512 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamil-
ton), that were “often used to effect the most detestable pur-
poses,” Calder, 3 Dall., at 396 (Paterson, J.).

Calder’s fourth category addresses this concern precisely.
A law reducing the quantum of evidence required to convict
an offender is as grossly unfair as, say, retrospectively elimi-
nating an element of the offense, increasing the punishment
for an existing offense, or lowering the burden of proof
(see infra, at 540–544).
In each of these instances, the gov-
ernment subverts the presumption of innocence by reducing
the number of elements it must prove to overcome that pre-
sumption; by threatening such severe punishment so as to
induce a plea to a lesser offense or a lower sentence; or by
making it easier to meet the threshold for overcoming the
presumption. Reducing the quantum of evidence necessary