Opinion ID: 392853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retroactivity of Estelle v. Smith

Text: 7 The constitution does not require that every decision of federal constitutional law be applied retroactively, and a federal court may apply a rule prospectively in certain circumstances. Brown v. Louisiana, 447 U.S. 323, 327, 100 S.Ct. 2214, 2219, 65 L.Ed.2d 159 (1980); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 628-29, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1737, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965). Whether a decision should be given retroactive or prospective application does not turn on the particular constitutional provision forming the basis for the principle expressed in the decision because  '(e)ach constitutional rule of criminal procedure has its own distinct functions, its own background of precedent, and its own impact on the administration of justice, and the way in which these factors combine must inevitably vary with the dictate involved.'  Id., at 327, 100 S.Ct. at 2214, quoting Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 728, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 1778, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). Instead, the determination of whether a decision should be accorded retroactive or prospective effect focuses upon a two-part standard. The first part of this test gauges whether the principle in question is new or is simply a restatement of already established principles and the application of those principles to a particular set of facts. A decision establishes a new principle of law either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) (citations omitted); Caver v. Alabama, 577 F.2d 1188, 1193 (5th Cir. 1978). Only a decision which establishes a new principle of law need be considered for prospective application. A decision which merely restates existing law or which simply applies already established law to a set of facts different from those which gave birth to the original principle is given retroactive application. United States v. Ross, 655 F.2d 1159, 1163 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc). The second part of the test consists of an evaluation of the factors first set out in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967): namely, the purpose of the new ruling, the extent to which law enforcement authorities may have relied upon the previous state of the law, and the impact of a retroactive application of the new federal constitutional principle on the administration of justice. Of these three factors, the first is clearly the most important and the others come into play chiefly when  'the purpose of the rule in question (does) not clearly favor either retroactivity or prospectivity.'  Brown v. Louisiana, supra, 447 U.S. at 328, 100 S.Ct. at 2219, quoting Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 251, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1033, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969). 8 In Smith, the Supreme Court held that the State's introduction into evidence of a court-appointed psychiatrist's testimony to prove a capital defendant's future dangerousness, based on information obtained by the psychiatrist from his interrogation of a defendant in custody who has neither requested the examination nor introduced psychiatric evidence on that issue, without a prior warning to the defendant that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he made could be used against him at a sentencing proceeding, violated the rule adopted in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Miranda established a procedural rule prohibiting the state from introducing as part of its case in chief either inculpatory or exculpatory statements made by a defendant stemming from an official custodial interrogation unless that questioning had been preceded by warnings to that defendant sufficient to inform him of his privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. See Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1875; Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 443, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 2363, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). The procedural safeguards required by Miranda were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but were instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected, Michigan v. Tucker, supra, 417 U.S. at 444, 94 S.Ct. at 2364, and Miranda itself indicated that no talismanic incantation was required to satisfy its strictures. California v. Prysock, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981). Thus, the State must both admonish a putative defendant and obtain a valid waiver of his fifth amendment privilege as prerequisites for introducing any statement made by him during the course of an official custodial interrogation. 9 The Supreme Court held in Smith that Miranda was applicable in the circumstances of that case and required the reversal of the petitioner's death sentence. The Court decided that proof of a Texas capital defendant's guilt did not, by itself, remove the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination because the State must prove a capital defendant's future dangerousness as a separate and distinct requirement for imposing a capital sentence apart from proof of that defendant's guilt. Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1873. 8 The Court further held that a person's communications to a psychiatrist were testimonial in nature, and therefore protected by the privilege, where a psychiatrist based his diagnosis on the substance of (the defendant's) disclosures during the pretrial psychiatric examination. Id. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1874. 9 The Court also concluded that custodial interrogation by a court-appointed psychiatrist must be treated the same as a custodial interrogation by a police officer or prosecuting attorney for the purpose of determining the applicability of Miranda. Id. at ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1875-76. Therefore, a custodial interrogation performed by a court-appointed psychiatrist used to establish an element of proof necessary to support the imposition of capital punishment must be preceded by a warning sufficient to advise a capital defendant of his fifth amendment privilege where the defendant has neither requested the examination nor introduced psychiatric evidence on the issue of future dangerousness. Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1875-76. 10 10 The State contends that the extension of the procedural safeguards (of Miranda) to psychiatric examinations, conducted by mental health professionals, who are not connected with law enforcement officials, originally conducted for neutral purposes, clearly presented an issue of first impression ... not clearly foreshadowed by any prior cases. Second Supplemental Brief for Respondent-Appellee at 7 (footnotes omitted). But the distinctions drawn by the State between Smith and Miranda do not withstand close scrutiny. In both cases an agent of the State conducted a custodial interrogation of a defendant, as those terms have been interpreted, 11 and the State thereby obtained statements from an accused which it then used as part of its case against the defendant. The only difference between the two situations is that the agent of the State who performed the custodial interrogation in Miranda was a police officer while the agent of the State who performed the custodial interrogation in Smith was a court-appointed psychiatrist. But the particular office that the official who performs the custodial interrogation represents is inconsequential because Miranda was not concerned with the division of responsibility between the various state investigatory agencies but was concerned with official custodial interrogations of an accused and the use of statements obtained from an accused without an attorney in such circumstances to prove the State's case against the accused. 12 The Miranda decision was designed to protect a putative defendant against the compulsion to incriminate himself arising from an official custodial interrogation. That compulsion can occur, however, from an interrogation conducted by a court-appointed psychiatrist as well as a police officer. The Smith decision merely recognized that a custodial interrogation conducted by a court-appointed psychiatrist raised the same concerns as a custodial interrogation conducted by a police officer and therefore must be preceded by the same warnings Miranda requires a police officer to give. 13 Therefore, while the Supreme Court had never held prior to Smith that Miranda warnings must be given to a defendant prior to a custodial interrogation performed by a court-appointed psychiatrist, the holding in Smith followed logically from the Miranda decision itself. Thus, Smith did not establish a new principle of federal constitutional law because that decision merely applied already fixed principles to a new factual situation. Accordingly, this holding in Smith must be given retroactive effect.