Opinion ID: 741726
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Exceptions to Teague.

Text: 45 Finally, we must determine whether either of the two narrow exceptions to the Teague rule apply. Neither party has contended that either of the exceptions have any relevance to this case. The first exception deals with new rules that place certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe. Caspari, 510 U.S. at 396, 114 S.Ct. at 956 (citing Teague, 489 U.S. at 307, 109 S.Ct. at 1073-74). This exception also applies if a rule addresses a substantive categorical guarantee accorded by the Constitution such as a rule prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense. O'Dell, 95 F.3d at 1238 (citing Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 494, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 1263, 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990)). The first exception clearly is not relevant here, and was summarily dismissed in both O'Dell and Stewart. In O'Dell, the exception was found to be inapplicable because the rule announced in Simmons neither decriminalizes a class of conduct nor prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on a particular class of persons because of their status or offense. O'Dell, 95 F.3d at 1238-39. 46 The second exception is for watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding. Caspari, 510 U.S. at 396, 114 S.Ct. at 956 (citing Saffle, 494 U.S. at 495, 110 S.Ct. at 1263-64). This exception is clearly meant to apply only to a small core of rules requiring observance of those procedures that ... are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. O'Dell, 95 F.3d at 1239 (citing Graham, 506 U.S. at 478, 113 S.Ct. at 903). The O'Dell court and our panel in Stewart both concluded that the rule announced in Simmons was not such a rule, and did not alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding. O'Dell, 95 F.3d at 1239; Stewart, 60 F.3d at 302-03. We concur in those conclusions that the second exception also does not apply to the rule announced in Simmons. We therefore reiterate that Simmons announced a new rule for purposes of Teague and Spreitzer may not receive the benefit of the rule in Simmons.