Document: 542 U.S. 348 SCHRIRO, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSv.SUMMERLIN No. 03-526. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 19, 2004. Decided June 24, Respondent was convicted first-degree murder and sentenced to death under Arizona's capital sentencing scheme then in effect, which authorized the trial judge, rather than jury, determine presence aggravating circumstances that make defendant eligible for sentence. The State affirmed on direct review. While respondent's subsequent federal habeas case pending Ninth Circuit, this decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490, required existence an factor be proved a jury judge scheme. Ring Arizona, 536 584, 603-609. Circuit invalidated sentence, rejecting argument did not apply because conviction sentence had become final review before decided. Held: does retroactively cases already Pp. 351-358. (a) A "new rule" resulting from decision applies convictions are only limited circumstances. substantive rules generally retroactively, but new procedural do — "`watershed criminal procedure' implicating fundamental fairness accuracy proceeding" given retroactive effect. Saffle Parks, 494 484, 495. Such rule must one "without likelihood accurate is seriously diminished." Teague Lane, 489 288, 313. 351-353. (b) Ring's holding properly classified as procedural. It alter range conduct or class persons subject penalty method determining whether engaged conduct. 353-355. (c) announce watershed procedure. This cannot confidently say judicial factfinding diminishes accuracy. 355-358. 341 F.3d 1082, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, filed dissenting opinion, STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, joined, post, p. 358. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 John Pressley Todd, Assistant Attorney General argued cause petitioner. With him briefs were Terry Goddard, General, Mary R. O'Grady, Solicitor Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Robert L. Ellman, General. 3 James A. Feldman States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Olson, Wray, Deputy Dreeben. 4 Ken Murray respondent. Fredric F. Kay, Michael Burke, Leticia Marquez, Stookey, Daniel Kaplan.* 5 JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 6 In case, we decide 584 (2002), 7 * 1981, Finance America employee Brenna Bailey disappeared while house call discuss outstanding debt with respondent Warren Summerlin's wife. That evening, anonymous woman (later identified mother-in-law) called police accused murdering Bailey. Bailey's partially nude body, her skull crushed, found next morning trunk car, wrapped bedspread home. Police arrested later overheard incriminating remarks his 8 sexual assault. provisions effect at time if several enumerated factors present. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-703(E), (F) (West 1978), amended by Act May 1, 1979 Sess. Laws ch. 144. Whether those existed, however, determined jury. § 13-703(B). after hearing, two factors: prior felony involving use threatened violence, 13-703(F)(2), commission offense especially heinous, cruel, depraved manner, 13-703(F)(6). Finding no mitigating factors, imposed Arizona Summerlin, 138 426, 675 P. 2d 686 (1983). 9 Protracted state proceedings followed. 466 (2000), supra. Apprendi, interpreted constitutional due-process jury-trial guarantees require that, "[o]ther fact conviction, any increases crime beyond prescribed statutory maximum submitted reasonable doubt." S., 490. Ring, applied principle issue here. We concluded law present, such judge. 603-609.1 specifically overruled our earlier Walton 497 639 (1990), upheld against similar challenge. 609. 10 relying Summerlin Stewart, 3d 1121 (2003) (en banc).2 rejected granted certiorari. 540 1045 (2003).3 II 11 When results rule," all still Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 328 (1987). As final, retroactively. includes decisions narrow scope statute interpreting its terms, see Bousley States, 523 614, 620-621 (1998), well determinations place particular covered State's power punish, 494-495 (1990); 311 (1989) (plurality opinion).4 they "necessarily carry significant risk stands `an act criminal'" faces punishment impose upon him. Bousley, supra, 620 (quoting Davis 417 333, 346 (1974)). 12 procedure, other hand, They produce criminal, merely raise possibility someone procedure might have been acquitted otherwise. Because more speculative connection innocence, give small set proceeding." Saffle, 495 Teague, opinion)). "fundamental" some abstract sense enough; Id., 313 (emphasis added). extremely narrow, "it unlikely . `ha[s] yet emerge.'" Tyler Cain, 533 656, 667, n. (2001) Sawyer Smith, 227, 243 (1990)). 13 agreed announced rule. 3d, 1108-1109. nevertheless alternative theories: first, it procedural; second, "watershed" entitled consider each theory turn. 14 alters punishes. (rule "hold[s] reach certain conduct" "make[s] criminal"); "decriminalize[s] [or] prohibit[s] imposition ... persons"). contrast, regulate manner defendant's culpability 620. 15 Judged standard, held "a sitting without [may not] find circumstance necessary penalty." Rather, "the Sixth Amendment requires [those circumstances] jury." Ibid. subjected penalty. could have; rested entirely Amendment's guarantee, provision has nothing may criminalize. Instead, altered permissible methods punishable death, requiring essential facts bearing punishment. Rules allocate decisionmaking authority fashion prototypical rules, conclusion reached numerous contexts. Gasperini Center Humanities, Inc., 518 415, 426 (1996) (Erie doctrine); Landgraf USI Film Products, 511 244, 280-281 (1994) (antiretroactivity presumption); Dobbert Florida, 432 282, 293-294 (1977) (Ex Post Facto Clause). 16 argues modified elements he convicted. He relies statement "[b]ecause operate `the functional equivalent element greater offense,' 609 (citation omitted); also Sattazahn Pennsylvania, 537 101, 111 opinion). agreed, concluding "reposition[ed] separate reshap[ed] structure law." 1105. 17 modifies normally punishes, rendering formerly unlawful lawful vice versa. 620-621. But what did; punished same after. aggravators restricted (as matter law) death-eligible defendants, effectively purposes, so requirements Constitution attaches elements. Court's made penalty, making former holding; latter would substantive. Circuit's nonetheless "reshap[ed] law," 1105, particularly remarkable face previous contrary. Towery, 204 386, 390-391, 64 828, 832-833, cert. dism'd, 539 986 (2003).5 B 18 falls retroactivity exception 311). offers reasons why juries factfinders, including tendency group deliberation suppress individual eccentricities; jury's protection exposure inadmissible evidence; better representation common community. majority added others, claim too acclimated swayed political pressure. 1109-1116. further notes common-law authorities praised ability. See, e. g., W. Blackstone, Commentaries England 380 (1768); Georgia Brailsford, Dall. (1794) (jury charge Jay, J.). 19 question here not, Framers believed factfinders judges (perhaps so—they certainly thought independent, Blakely Washington, ante, 305-308). Nor actually (again, perhaps so). "seriously diminishe[s]" there "`impermissibly large risk'" punishing reach. 312-313 Desist 394 262 (1969) (Harlan, dissenting)) evidence simply equivocal support conclusion. 20 First, every another less accurate. dissent noted several, juries' confused over legal standards influenced emotion philosophical predisposition. 1129-1131 (opinion Rawlinson, J.) (citing, inter alia, Eisenberg & Wells, Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions Capital Cases, 79 Cornell (1993); Garvey, Emotional Economy Sentencing, 75 N. Y. 26 (2000); Bowers, Sandys, Steiner, Foreclosed Impartiality Sentencing: Jurors' Predispositions, Guilt-Trial Experience, Premature Decision Making, 83 1476 (1998)). Members opined yield consistent judges' experience. Proffitt 428 242, 252 (1976) (joint Powell, JJ.). Finally, mixed reception right countries, Vidmar, Jury Elsewhere World, World Systems 421-447 (N. Vidmar ed. 2000), though irrelevant meaning continued Constitution, surely makes implausible injustice. many presumably minds continue disagree all, 21 Our DeStefano Woods, 392 631 (1968) (per curiam), point. There refused Duncan Louisiana, 391 145 (1968), guarantee preTeague framework, reasoning germane. although tends prevent arbitrariness repression[,] `[w]e assert trial—or trial—held alone unfair never fairly treated jury.'" 633-634 Duncan, 158). "[t]he values implemented measurably served retrial past procedures trial." 634. If impermissibly inaccurate, hard how finds be. 22 contends reflect community deciding whether, example, depraved. Post, 361-362 condition eligibility standards. 13-703(F)(6) 1978). easy enhanced determination when redefines statute's ensure result. advances variations theme different (or rather, "dramatically different," 363). Much analysis application rejection it, favor broader endeavor "balance competing considerations," 362. Even inclined revisit fashion, agree dissent's conclusions. DeStefano, considered longer relevant Teague. 365. "[a]ll three prospective rule." 633 Thus, result even sole criterion retroactivity.6 23 24 system bound enforce interpret them. follow full round appeals faithfully understood time, litigate claims indefinitely hopes will day change heart. contrary judgment reversed, remanded opinion. 25 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Nebraska et al. Jon Bruning, Nebraska, J. Kirk Brown, Attorneys their respective follows: William H. Pryor, Jr., Alabama, Salazar Colorado, M. Jane Brady Delaware, Charles Crist, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Steve Carter Indiana, Mike McGrath Montana, Brian Sandoval Nevada, Jim Petro Ohio, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Henry Dargan McMaster South Carolina, Lawrence Long Dakota, Greg Abbott Texas, Mark Shurtleff Utah, Jerry Kilgore Virginia; Voice Victims, Twist Douglas Beloof; Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Scheidegger. amici affirmance National Association Defense Lawyers Beth Brinkmann, Seth Galanter, David Porter, Peter Goldberger; Welsh White Jeffrey T. Green, Mr. White, pro se, Rudy Gerber, se. Kate Lowenstein Avery Murder Victims' Families Reconciliation doubt, seeState Jordan, 126 283, 286, 614 825, denied, 449 (1980), aspect issue. petition effective date Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty 1996, 110 1214, apply. SeeLindh Murphy, 521 320, 336-337 (1997). sought certiorari ground noApprendi violation prior-conviction aggravator, exempt Almendarez-Torres 224 sufficient standing authorize denied issue, (2003), express it. sometimes referred type falling toTeague's bar see, Horn Banks, 266, 271, (2002) curiam); accurately characterized bar. thatRing understanding changed. Compare 602-603 496-497 (2000). changed, actual content not. 200 267, 279, 1139, 1151 (2001), rev'd grounds, (2002); Gretzler, 135 42, 54, 659 13, 461 971 (1983); Johnson Fankell, 520 911, 916 distinguishesDeStefano "this involves subclass defendants deprived rights, harm within widespread, administration justice problem far serious, reliance interest weighty." 366. third, fourth these points insofar relates accuracy, unsubstantiated assertion. significantly enhances able hold first factor—"prevent[ing] repression," 633—did retroactivity. whom GINSBURG join, dissenting. 27 findings qualify person death. my view, amounts ruling court considering challenge "final" sentence—i.e., 28 288 opinion), sets forth criteria. (1) "implicit concept ordered liberty," "fundamental fairness," (2) "central innocence guilt," absence "creates innocent convicted." 311-313 opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). context where "innocence second asks determination" legally appropriate 244 O'Dell Netherland, 151, 171, (1997) (STEVENS, dissenting). 29 deny meets criterion, liberty." Cf. 499 (2000) (SCALIA, concurring) (absent Apprendi's "has intelligible content"); 610 (Apprendi guarantee); 301-302 (tracing conception back Blackstone); 145, 157-158 (Sixth right"). focuses criterion: Is punishment? 30 I explained concurrence believe Eighth demands community-based constitutes proper retribution. concurring judgment); Harris 513 504, 515-526 (1995) dissenting); Spaziano 468 447, 467-490 (1984) part part). And likely "express conscience ultimate life death." Witherspoon 510, 519 (1968). STEVENS pointed out: 31 "Juries—comprised fair cross section community—are representative institutions judiciary; composition experiences whole, inevitably based reliably, can segment selected service bench." Spaziano, 486-487 (footnote 32 On view matter, both liberty assessment 33 majority's view. special offender "any doubt," 34 says Apprendi-related satisfy Teague's accuracy-enhancing requirement, reasons. out "every accurate." Ante, 356. Hence, "confidently" "judicial accuracy." original). Second, extended should "If," concludes, be." 357. 35 majority, overlooks additional considerations lead me opposite 36 factfinder's role applicability involve, finding brute facts, death-related, value judgments. leading single aggravator charged factfinder committed "especially manner." Supp. 2003); Office Case Commission Final Report (2002). Three four Ring-affected aggravator. Colo. 18-1.3-1201(5)(j) (Lexis Idaho Code 19-2515(9)(e) Neb. 29-2523(1)(d) (1995). Words like heinous," "cruel," "depraved"—particularly asked proceeding—require reference standards, incorporate values. (Indeed, Nebraska's standard explicitly assess light "ordinary morality intelligence." Ibid.) equipped identify accurately. 360. 37 basic purpose strongly favors principles effort balance considerations. 309-313; Mackey 401 (1971) judgments one); 256 interests related Great Writ's objectives—protecting erroneous assuring fundamentally procedures—favor applying 312-313; Mackey, 693-694. So system's commitment "equal justice"—i.e., "assur[ing] uniformity treatment among prisoners." 689. 38 Where death-sentence-related unusually strong force. clear degree true noncapital case." Gilmore Taylor, 508 342 (1993). error tolerate correspondingly diminished. At "qualitative difference punishments"—namely, severity irrevocability "requires scrutiny California Ramos, 463 992, 998-999 part) (the mandates safeguards justified response offense"); Ake 470 68, 87 (1985) (Burger, judgment) ("In finality warrants protections cases"). 39 Consider, too, law's uniformity. "uniform" offenders through now know violate Constitution—but allowed go receives new, constitutionally proceeding? Outside context, understand nature word "finality" implies: One prisoner serving other's begun. seems be, is, future event—an event undergone either prisoner. respect event, prisoners are, important respect, position. "finality-based" difference. dramatically importance. 40 Certainly ordinary citizen witness individuals, unconstitutional procedures, going saved, accident timing. How square spectacle "vital importance appear reason"? Beck 447 625, 637-638 (1980) 41 SCALIA'S observation, underscores wrote repeated man's existed" undermine "our people's traditional veneration cases." 612 so, equally Ring. 42 recognizes argue against, indeed forbid, rules. These include "interest insuring point certainty comes end litigation"; desirability "attention ultimately focused free restored useful community"; society endless resources spend retrials, (where witnesses unavailable stale) unreliable results. 690-691 308-310. Comity autonomy direction. id., 308; Engle Isaac, 456 107, 128, (1982). 43 Certain weak Retroactivity here, inordinate expenditure resources. affect approximately individuals row. Hears Arguments Latest Case, Apr. 20, 2004, 5. number, however absolute compared 1.2 million presently confined prisons. Dept. Justice, Bureau Statistics Bulletin, Prisoner Jail Inmates Midyear 2003, (May 2004). Consequently, impact much affecting process retroactive. 44 Further, "life death," concern ultimately" "on community" barely relevant. 690 discount comparative death-related collateral proceedings, stretch years regardless. 321, ("A major reason Harlan espoused wholly inapplicable context"). 45 Third, fails hopes. Duncan's holding—that States— took into account "(a) extent enforcement old standards." 46 "reliance" "effect justice," there, unlike thrown prison doors open wide—at least Louisiana possibly well. standards"—also favored only. described broadly, "prevent[ing] repression"; recognized judge-only trials fair; "would past" 47 By weighty. For reasons, come differently Insofar relevance highlights importance, decisions, taking underlie categorical And, shown above, case. 362-365. 48 out, contribution unable creates "`"impermissibly risk"'" improperly imposed. stated, need tolerate. purpose, requirement announces proceedings. 49 respectfully dissent.

Category: 0