Opinion ID: 3030011
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Due Process Right to Immunization of Defense

Text: Witnesses Allen asserts a due process right to judicial immunity for his defense witnesses, independent of prosecutorial misconduct. This assertion is a “new constitutional rule[ ] of criminal procedure,” which is barred by Teague v. Lane. 489 U.S. 288 (1989). New constitutional rules of criminal procedure are inapplicable to “cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.” Id. at 310. When Allen’s conviction became final on October 5, 1987, only one court had recognized judicially conferred immunity in select circumstances. See Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1980). The remedy Allen seeks was thus hardly compelled by precedent. See United States v. Lord, 711 F.2d 887, 891 n.2 (9th Cir. 1983) (expressly declining to reach the merits of Virgin Islands’ concept of judicially conferred immunity); People v. Hunter, 49 Cal. 3d 957, 974 (1989) (recognizing Virgin Islands as “the one case which has clearly recognized [judicially conferred immunity]”).