Document: 127 S. Ct. 1173 (2007) Glen WHORTON, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections, Petitioner, v. Marvin Howard BOCKTING. No. 05-595. Supreme Court United States. Argued November 1, 2006. Decided February 28, 2007. *1176 Attorney General George J. Chanos, for petitioner, by Irving L. Gornstein the States as amicus curiae, special leave Court, supporting petitioner. Frances A. Forsman, Las Vegas, NV, respondent. State Nevada, Gerald Gardner, Chief Deputy General, Counsel Record, Victor-Hugo Schulze, II, Senior Rene Hulse, Petitioner. Franny Federal Public Defender, Michael Pescetta, Assistant Defender District Respondent. *1177 Justice ALITO delivered opinion Court. This case presents question whether, under rules set out in Teague Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 1060, 103 Ed. 2d 334 (1989), our decision Crawford Washington, 541 36, 124 1354, 158 177 (2004), is retroactive to cases already final on direct review. We hold that it not. I A Respondent Bockting lived with his wife, Laura Bockting, their 3-year-old daughter Honesty, and Laura's 6-year-old from a previous relationship, Autumn. One night, while respondent was at work, Autumn awoke dream crying, but she refused tell her mother what wrong, explaining: "`[D]addy said you would make him he beat my butt if told you.'" App. 119. After reassured her, had frequently forced engage numerous varied sexual acts him. Ibid. The next day, confronted asked house. He did so denied any wrongdoing. Two days later, called rape crisis hotline brought hospital an examination. At hospital, Detective Charles Zinovitch Vegas Metropolitan Police Sexual Assault Unit attempted interview found too distressed discuss assaults. then ordered examination, which revealed strong physical evidence See Findings Fact Conclusions Law Order Case C-83110 (D.Nev., Sept. 5, 1994); 47, interviewed presence mother, time, provided detailed description assault carried respondent; also demonstrated those using anatomically correct dolls. Id., 47-48; arrested, state grand jury indicted four counts minor 14 years age. respondent's preliminary hearing, testified understood difference between truth lie, became upset when about Although initially agreed touched way "[she] didn't think supposed touch [her]," id., 14, later stated could not remember how or detective, 19-21. trial court, however, testimony be sufficient trial. trial, court held hearing outside determine whether testify. apparent sworn in, 25-26, moved Nev.Rev.Stat. § 51.385 (2003)[1] allow *1178 recount Autumn's statements regarding 25-27. Under statute, out-of-court made child 10 age describing abuse may admitted finds unavailable unable testify "the content circumstances statement provide circumstantial guarantees trustworthiness." 51.385(1)(a). Over defense counsel's objection admission this violate Confrontation Clause, 27-28, reliability satisfy 51.385. As result ruling, were permitted only male who opportunity In addition, prosecution introduced medical exam. own assaults, fact Autumn, unlike many children age, acquired some knowledge acts, since seen engaging intercourse become familiar terms. 118. guilty three imposed two consecutive life sentences another concurrent sentence. B took appeal handed down its 1993, more than decade before Crawford.[2] analyzing contention violated Clause rights, looked Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597 (1980), governing precedent State, Nev. 103, 847 P.2d 1364 (1993) (per curiam). Roberts hearsay declarant bore indicia reliability, either because fell within firmly rooted exception there "particularized trustworthiness" relating question. U.S., 66, 2531. Applying constitutional surrounding making particularized *1179 trustworthiness. cited "natural spontaneity" initial reiteration same account several use dolls demonstrate descriptions generally familiar. supra, 109-112, P.2d, 1368-1370. C filed petition writ habeas corpus arguing Court's rights. petition, holding entitled relief 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), "contrary to" "involv[e] unreasonable application of, clearly established law, determined States." Bayer, CV-N-98-0764-ECR (Mar. 19, 2002), 69-70. appealed Appeals Ninth Circuit. While pending, we issued Crawford, overruled "[t]estimonial witnesses absent trial" are admissible "only where unavailable, defendant has prior cross-examine [the witness]." 59, 1354. Davis 547 ___, 126 2266, 165 224 (2006). noted outcome Robertsas well all similar decided Courtwas consistent rule announced concluded interpretation unsound respects. 60, 1354 ("Although results decisions have been faithful original meaning cannot rationales"). First, observed potentially excluded much restrictions nontestimonial governed Clause. noted, test "malleable" permitting ex parte testimonial statements. concluded: "Where involved, do Framers meant Sixth Amendment's protection vagaries evidence, less amorphous notions `reliability.' ... Admitting deemed reliable judge fundamentally odds right confrontation. To sure, Clause's ultimate goal ensure procedural rather substantive guarantee. It commands reliable, assessed particular manner: testing crucible cross-examination. thus reflects judgment, desirability (a point little dissent), can best determined." 61, D On denial corpus, contended applied case, into convicted further *1180 argued should (1) old existence time conviction (2) "`watershed'" implicated fundamental fairness accuracy criminal proceeding." Saffle Parks, 494 484, 495, 110 1257, 108 415 (1990) (quoting Teague, 311, 1060 (plurality opinion)). divided panel Circuit reversed applies retroactively collateral 399 F.3d 1010, amended, 408 1127 (2005). panel's lead opinion, Judge McKeown new procedure, F.3d, 1014-1016, nevertheless review watershed "rework[ed] understanding bedrock procedure," 1016.[3] Noonan concurred, preferred analysis differed McKeown's. believed announce rule, 1022-1024, "[a]s alternative [this] order [the] court," "also concur[red] McKeown's opinion," 1024. Wallace, concurring dissenting, rise level jurisprudence. rehearing en banc, nine judges dissenting. 418 1055 conflicts every other addressed issue.[4] granted certiorari resolve conflict. 2017, 164 778 II subsequent cases, laid framework used determining one opinions judgments framework, both review, applicable still Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 107 708, 93 649 (1987). proceeding "`watershed rul[e] procedure' implicating Saffle, 1257 *1181 undisputed decided. therefore turn one. defined "a `dictated existing defendant's final.'" 488, 301, opinion); emphasis original). definition, clear rule. "dictated" precedent. Quite opposite true: flatly inconsistent precedent, overruled. Davis, 2266. "The explicit overruling earlier no doubt creates rule." 1257. concluding merely relied observation holdings decisions, including (and Framers' basis decision). 57-59, But quick note rationales" "`The "new rule" principle validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations precedents courts even though they shown contrary decisions.'" Lockhart Fretwell, 506 364, 372-373, 113 838, 122 180 Butler McKellar, 407, 414, 1212, 347 (1990)). And stating obvious say that, "reasonable jurists," Graham Collins, 461, 467, 892, 260 (1993), reached conclusion declarant. Because dictated final, III substantive, attack unless "extremely narrow," Schriro Summerlin, 542 348, 352, 2519, 159 442 (2004). "`unlikely'" such "`ha[ve] yet emerge,'" ibid. Tyler Cain, 533 656, 121 2478, 150 632 (2001); internal quotation marks omitted); see O'Dell Netherland, 521 151, 157, 117 1969, 138 351 (1997); Graham, 478, 892; 313, opinion). *1182 rejected claim satisfied requirements status. See, e.g., supra (rejecting retroactivity Ring Arizona, 536 584, 2428, 153 556 (2002)); Beard Banks, 406, 2504, (2004) Mills Maryland, 486 367, 1860, 384 (1988)); O'Dell, Simmons South Carolina, 512 154, 114 2187, 129 133 (1994)); Gilmore Taylor, 508 333, 2112, 306 instructions homicide); Sawyer Smith, 497 227, 2822, 111 193 Caldwell Mississippi, 472 320, 105 2633, 86 231 (1985)). qualify watershed, must meet requirements. necessary prevent "an `"impermissibly large risk"'" inaccurate conviction. 356, 2519; Tyler, 665, 2478. Second, "alter elements essential (internal omitted). consider each these turn. does first requirement impermissibly risk mechanism (cross-examination) ensuring convict accused. issue here, "[i]t enough aimed improving trial," Sawyer, 242, 2822 "is directed toward enhancement sense," 243, 2822. Instead, remedied 366, 2519. Guidance answering Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 9 799 (1963), repeatedly referred discussing here. Beard, 417, 2504; 1257; Gilmore, 2112 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Gideon, identified qualifying exception, counsel appointed indigent charged felony. When wishes represented representation, held, unreliable verdict intolerably high. Mickens 535 162, 166, 1237, 152 291 (2002); Cronic, 466 648, 658-659, 104 2039, 80 657 (1984); 344-345, 792. eliminated risk. comparable limited scope, relationship factfinding process far profound. overall effect *1183 improve finding trials. Indeed, recognized never specifically approved introduction 57-60, 2373. Accordingly, surprising regard fact-finding easy assess. With respect statements, restrictive cases. Specifically, erroneously reliable. 1058 (O'Scannlain, dissenting banc) (observing unlikely occurred "in anything exceptional case"). whatever improvement produced considered together Crawford's elimination against subject cross-examination without judicial determination reliability. hand, permits lack unclear whole, decreased increased number here resulted net Rather, `one likelihood accurate seriously diminished.'" 1028 (Wallace, dissenting) 2519) omitted; change magnitude. quotations omitted Contrary suggestion Appeals, 1019 (relying adjunct confrontation" "bedrock rul[e]"), met simply showing based "bedrock" right. bar 418, 2504. Similarly, "[t]hat `fundamental' abstract sense enough." requirement, itself constitute previously unrecognized element proceeding. applying again example "we hesitated sweeping rules" qualify. certainly important, *1184 category Gideon. effected profound "`sweeping'" change. 2504 167, 1969). lacks "primacy" "centrality" "alter[ed] proceeding," IV sum, procedure fall rules. reverse judgment remand proceedings opinion. ordered. NOTES [1] Section provides, relevant part: "1. [A] act conduct performed if: "(a) finds, jury, trustworthiness; "(b) testifies "2. trustworthiness statement, shall consider, limitation, whether: spontaneous; subjected repetitive questioning; "(c) motive fabricate; "(d) terminology unexpected age; "(e) stable mental state." [2] dismissed 1989, 1023, 810 317 (unpublished table opinion), vacated remanded reconsideration light Idaho Wright, 805, 3139, 638 (1990), 1021, 3266, 777 (1990). [3] merited Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996, statute incorporates (1989) analysis. 1021-1022. [4] Lave Dretke, 444 333 (C.A.5 2006); Espy Massac, 443 1362 (C.A.11 Murillo Frank, 402 786 (C.A.7 2005); Dorchy Jones, 398 783 (C.A.6 Brown Uphoff, 381 1219 (C.A.10 2004); Mungo Duncan, 393 327 (C.A.2 Edwards People, P.3d 977 (Colo.2006) (en banc); Ennis 137 1095 (2006); Danforth 718 N.W.2d 451 (Minn.2006); Williams, 695 23 (Iowa Chandler Crosby, 916 So. 728 (Fla.2005); re Markel, 154 Wash.2d 262, 249

Category: 0