Document: 128 S. Ct. 1029 (2008) Stephen DANFORTH, Petitioner, v. MINNESOTA. No. 06-8273. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 31, 2007. Decided February 20, 2008. *1032 Benjamin J. Butler, Minneapolis, MN, for petitioner. Patrick C. Diamond, respondent. Counsel Record, Assistant Minnesota State Public Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Office the Minnesota, Petitioner. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Deputy Jean Burdorf, Respondent. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. New constitutional rules announced by this that place certain kinds primary individual conduct beyond power States to proscribe, as well "watershed" criminal procedure, must be applied in all future trials, cases pending on direct review, and federal habeas corpus proceedings. All other new procedure trials but may not provide basis a collateral attack state-court conviction. This is substance "Teague rule" described O'Connor her plurality Teague Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 1060, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1989).[1]*1033 The question case whether constrains authority state courts give broader effect than required opinion. We have never suggested it does, now hold does not. I In 1996 jury found petitioner Danforth guilty first-degree sexual with minor. See Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (1994). 6-year-old victim did testify at trial, saw heard videotaped interview child. On appeal from his conviction, argued tape's admission violated Sixth Amendment's guarantee "[i]n prosecutions, accused shall enjoy right ... confronted witnesses against him." Applying rule admissibility set forth Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597 (1980), Appeals concluded tape "was sufficiently reliable admitted into evidence," affirmed Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 375 (1997). conviction became final 1998 when denied review petitioner's time filing writ certiorari elapsed. Caspari Bohlen, 510 383, 390, 114 948, 127 236 After had become final, we "new evaluating reliability testimonial statements cases. Crawford Washington, 541 36, 68-69, 124 1354, 158 177 (2004), held where are issue, "the only indicium sufficient satisfy demands one Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation." Shortly thereafter, filed postconviction petition, which he was entitled trial because taped Crawford. standards Teague, court apply case. granted consider two arguments: (1) lower erred holding retroactively under Teague; (2) "free retroactivity standard Teague," should even if law require do so. 718 451, 455 (2006). rejected both arguments. Ibid. With respect second, our decisions Michigan Payne, 412 47, 93 1966, 36 736 (1973), American Trucking Assns., Inc. Smith, 496 167, 110 2323, 148 (1990), itself establish free decision announcing retroactive application given Court.[2] acknowledged *1034 proceedings,[3] "we fashion own Crawford." N.W.2d, 455-457. Our recent Whorton Bockting, 549 ___, 1173, 167 1 (2007), makes clear correctly were decided. Nevertheless, certiorari, 550 2427, 1129 or any prohibits them doing so.[4] II begin comment source For much Nation's history, rightssuch Amendment confrontation issue Crawfordwere binding Federal law, fact, imposed no constraints procedures could follow imposing sanctions their citizens. Neither originally ratified nor Amendments added Bill Rights 1791 gave federal-court fairness procedures. Moreover, before 1867 statutory district writs extend convicted criminals custody. Act Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 28, 1, 14 Stat. 385. ratification Fourteenth radically changed courts' relationship courts. That Amendment, post-Civil War Reconstruction 1868, Court's decide defendant proceeding received fair triali.e., deprivation liberty "without due process law." Const., Amdt. 14, ("[N]or deprive person life, liberty, property, without law"). construing imposes minimum States, requires defendants protections "implicit concept ordered liberty." Palko Connecticut, 302 *1035 319, 325, 58 149, 82 288 (1937). Slowly first, then an accelerating pace 1950's 1960's, safeguards afforded Rightsincluding defendant's "to him"are incorporated Due Process Clause therefore upon Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 9 799 (1963) (applying counsel States); Pointer Texas, 380 400, 403, 85 1065, 13 923 (1965) (holding confront him likewise fundamental made obligatory Amendment"). interpretation basic has evolved over years. accepted argument previously endorsed 597, needed reconsideration "stray[ed] original meaning Confrontation Clause." U.S., 42, 1354. "turn[ed] historical background understand its meaning," id., 43, relied primarily legal developments occurred prior adoption derive correct interpretation. Id., 43-50, "Constitution prescribes determining testimony we, less courts, lack replace devising." 67, Thus, rule"as term defined Teaguebecause result dictated precedent existing final," 301, 1060 (plurality opinion). It not, however, "of devising" product views about sound policy. III today also understood backdrop somewhat confused confusing "retroactivity" decided years between 1965 1987. Indeed, note outset very word misleading speaks temporal terms. "Retroactivity" suggests declare "nonretroactive," implying existence date announced. But incorrect. As already explained, itself, judicial create law. Accordingly, underlying necessarily pre-exists articulation rule. What assess scope newly right, violation announcement will entitle relief sought.[5] *1036 Originally, whose convictions rendered judgment they custody lacked jurisdiction Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 7 650 (1830); Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 176, 21 872 (1874); Siebold, 371, 376-377, 25 717 (1880).[6] 1915, realm violations would available prisoners expanded include proceedings "deprive[d] life Frank Mangum, 237 309, 35 582, 59 969 (1915). early 1900's, such so serious effectively void jurisdiction. See, e.g., Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 43 265, 67 543 (1923) (mob domination trial); Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 55 340, 79 791 (1935) (per curiam) (knowing use perjured prosecution); Waley Johnston, 316 101, 62 964, 86 1302 (1942) (coerced plea).[7] serial incorporation during 1960's more obligations created opportunity claims individuals being Constitution. until continued construe every error, including ones, entitling habeas. "New" were, discussion analysis, routinely review. Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 12 908 (1964); Gideon, 799; Eskridge Washington Bd. Prison Terms Paroles, 357 214, 78 1061, 2 1269 (1958) curiam). Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 1731, 601 (1965), expressly considered first time. Adopting practical approach, each determined case-by-case examining purpose rule, *1037 reliance administration justice 629, 1731. those considerations exclusionary Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081 (1961), effect; words, decision.[8]Linkletter, 636-640, During next four years, produced strikingly divergent results. Harlan pointed out classic dissent Desist 394 244, 257, 89 1030, 22 248 (1969), subject Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 459, 15 453 (1966); another yet commenced, Johnson Jersey, 384 719, 1772, 16 882 tainted evidence been introduced Fuller Alaska, 393 80, 61, 212 (1968) curiam); still others party involved proscribed official occurred, Stovall 388 293, 87 1967, 1199 (1967); DeStefano Woods, 392 631, 88 2093, 20 1308 He reasonably questioned "may properly legitimate products rather commands super-legislature." 259, 1030. Harlan's Desist, buttressed searching separate Mackey 401 667, 675, 91 1160, 28 404 (1971) (opinion concurring judgments part dissenting part), scholarly criticism,[9] laid groundwork eventual demise standard. Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 107 708, 649 (1987), "unprincipled inequitable," reaffirmed Griffith's rejection "retroactive" applicability She adopted (with significant modification) approach advocated judgments. general nonretroactivity *1038 stating "[u]nless fall within exception applicable announced." 310, exceptions: render types "`beyond law-making proscribe,'" 311, "implicate trial," 312, 313, 1060.[10] what remedied habeas.[11] They define "new" rights themselves. Nor, explain, (or respondent Court) speak entirely can remedies these IV explicitly implicitly constrained range redressable spoke broad terms rules. Although arose habeas, rely procedural posture factor analysis. Arguably, therefore, established might equal force reviewing convictions. stateand concludethat limitation States.[12] A year after deciding Linkletter, address Escobedo Illinois, 478, 1758, 977 (1964), Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694 (1966). began respective dates decisions; *1039 parties themselves.[13] Notably, Oregon despite Johnson. Fair, 263 Ore. 502 P.2d 1150 (1972), noted continuing stated choose degree prospectivity believe appropriate particular consideration, long least requires." Ore., 387-388, P.2d, 1152. holding, cited language "`States effectuate stricter down decision.'" 386, 1151 (quoting Johnson, 733, 1772).[14] Like Unlike merely fact Teague. close reading tailored unique context bearing Because us involve either exceptions," O'Connor's merits following three comments. First, discussionor opinions provided blueprint entire analysisasserts intimates definition class eligible inhibit agency benefit she defined. Second, clearly indicates Teague's exercise *1040 interpret statute. Chapter 153 Title U.S.Code gives grant "writs corpus," leaves unresolved many important questions relief. interpreted congressional silencealong statute's command dispose petitions "as require," U.S.C. 2243as authorization adjust accordance equitable prudential considerations. Brecht Abrahamson, 507 619, 113 1710, 123 353 (1993) (harmless-error standard); McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 111 1454, 517 (1991) (abuse-of-the-writ bar relief); Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594 (1977) (procedural default); Stone Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 49 1067 (1976) (cognizability Fourth claims). plainly grounded authority, situated line adjusting 308, opinion) (citing, inter alia, Stone).[15] Since based extends applying statute, cannot read obligation Third, text reasoning illustrate meant considering challenging numerous references "Great writ" "writ," "[t]he relevant frame reference" purposes available." 306, justified *1041 reference comity finality Federalism Preciose, 129 N.J. 475, 609 A.2d 1280, 1292 (1992) (explaining federalism concerns "simply reviews rulings courts"). If anything, militate favor allowing And while is, course, implicated interest, one. matter evaluate, weigh importance of, seeking remedy points uniformity inequity inherent approach. There interest "reducing haphazard disuniformity Post, 1053. uniformity, outweigh principle independent sovereigns plenary make enforce laws infringe guarantees. allows crimes, punishments, evidence, civil variety different waysso violate Constitutionis otherwise limited general, undefined uniformity. Nonuniformity unavoidable reality federalist system government. Any surely equally citizens offend thus abundantly non-retroactivity fashioned achieve goals minimizing intrusion intended limit overturn convictionsnot court's State's convictions.[16] subsequent cases, characterize limiting relief, confirm Beard Banks, 542 412, 2504, 159 494 (2004) ("Teague's acts prisoners" (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, brackets omitted)); Caspari, 389, 948 ("The [Teague] prevents granting *1042 prisoner sentence final"). noteworthy almost universally Cowell Leapley, 458 514 (S.D.1990); 1280; Schmelzer Murphy, 201 Wis. 246, 256-257, 548 45, (1996) (choosing volition adopt rule); see Egelhoff, 272 Mont. 114, 900 260 (1995).[17] Commentators similarly confident "restrictions appl[ied] cases," leaving "determine respond state." Hutton, Retroactivity States: Impact Lane Postconviction Remedies, 44 Ala. L.Rev. 421, 423-424, 422-423 (1993). sum, limits way court, convictions, deemed "nonretroactive" V contends decisionsMichigan Payne Smithcast doubt mandated disagree. 736, prohibiting "vindictive" resentencing North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 723-726, 2072, 23 656 (1969).[18] Relying Stovall, Pearce Payne's Pearce's decision.[19] reversed Court, retroactively, remanded further At blush appears lend support view greater *1043 authorize. But, noted, "`pending clarification'" 49, 1966. order guidance concerning regarded ambiguity rule.[20] purport definitive ruling Pearce; modify disposition case; simply providing clarification sought. Most significantly, proceedings, prohibit require.[21] some continued, decisions. Pennsylvania McCormick, 359 Pa.Super. 461, 470, 519 442, 447 (1986), example, Superior chose Allen Hardy, 478 255, 106 2878, 92 199 (1986) explained "not [in part] neither constitution dictate effect." Pa.Super., A.2d, 447. B 148, petitioners challenged constitutionality Arkansas statute enacted 1983 discriminatory burden interstate truckers. While suit pending, declared virtually identical tax unconstitutional. Scheiner, 483 266, 2829, 226 (1987). *1044 struck issue. Smith refund taxes assessed Scheiner. Scheiner retroactively. Four Members agreed. pre-Scheiner payments invalidate decision. dissented. raised substantive Commerce remedial whether, so, refund. invalid effect. Whether get refund, mixed instance. SCALIA concurred plurality's disagreed agree reasoning. diverged "in way," explained: "I share [the dissent's] perception prospective decisionmaking incompatible role, say prescribe law] be. framing to-day whether `apply' retroactivelypresupposes creating opposed declaring is. Such contrary understanding `the Power,' Art. III, common traditional one, justify denying unconstitutional enactments duly elected legislatures, Marbury Madison, Cranch 137[, 60] (1803)the asserted To governmental announce forbid it, forbids it; when, case, placed ours `applies' applies; Constitution, decision, invalidates change year; since conform decisions, supposed notion take form sense. Either enforcement (which there) unconstitutional, not; was, statutes occurring decision; wrong, needs attention." 201, 2323. SCALIA's vote rested disagreement Scheinerrather *1045 analysis opinionthere five votes supporting dissent's inform today.[22] several later, majority Harper Virginia Dept. Taxation, 509 2510, 125 74 Harper, like request paid similar invalideven unconstitutional full "`provide consistent principles,'" 100, 2510 (citing 181, 2323), "`a impermissibly retains flexibility responding determination'" clause, McKesson Corp. Division Alcoholic Beverages Tobacco, Fla. Business Regulation, 18, 39-40, 2238, 17 (1990)). left "Virginia performance tasks pertaining crafting remedy." 102, 2510. specifically "`is provide, satisfies requirements outlined.'" McKesson, 51-52, 2238); ("State process, circumstances confine lesser remedy" citations omitted). extent today,[23] conclusion chooses "sets meet exceed relief." 178-179, 2323 proposition *1046 places violations. VI Finally, acknowledges protection enacting legislation argues misconstruction Hass, 420 714, 95 1215, 570 (1975)like Ableman Booth, How. 506, 169 (1859), Tarble's Case, 397, (1872)provides solid proposition. misconstruing Rather, developed govern Whitfield, S.W.3d 253, 268 (Mo.2003) ("[A]s ..."). there absence claim reason concluding confirmed additional presumably Supremacy Article entitiesnot just judgesto comply it. waive defense, course litigation, choosing Collins Youngblood, 497 37, 41, 2715, 30 failing raise timely manner, Schiro Farley, 222, 228-229, 783, 47 indeed anomalous legislatures executives bound are. identified, discern, promulgate novel ample control courtsparticularly legislationwe comparable supervisory work judges. Fankell, 520 911, 117 1800, 138 108 interests occasionally development common-law law,[24] normal role be." (SCALIA, J., judgment). Just tip scales construction another, uncertainty *1047 impose judges wrongful possible policy arguments favoring espouses. "end [of opinion] startling" "two defendants, whom committed same crime, time, day, Constitution" obtain 1047. assertion ignores hypothetical commit "same crime." laws, tried sovereigns, mayfor reasonsbe penalties. nonuniformity necessary consequence VII keep mind jurisprudence rules" concerned, availability nonavailability remedies. former "pure resolution uniformly throughout Nation, latter 205, (STEVENS, dissenting). imply trialonly fully government recognize quite wrong assume, conducted depends how complete appellate process. reversed, inconsistent true reinstate disposing petition ordered. Chief ROBERTS, KENNEDY joins, dissenting. Some retroactivelyto concludedand comes province duty" is." 137, 177, 60 (1803). arbiters law; arbiter retroactive. contravenes bedrock propositions. end startling: Of executed freethe *1048 claim, second Framers' vest "one supreme Court" responsibility ensure jealous respectfully dissent. One (1989)our leading modern retroactivityTeague's author "The determination retroactive... When generally determine `is bit provisions themselves mean, guarantee, denied.'" 177-178, (1990) O'Connor, J.) Chapman California, 386 21, 824, 705 citation reason, consistently adhere decisions." 178, Arsenault Massachusetts, 35, 5 curiam)). Even recently, "Supremacy allow doctrine supplanted invocation (citation point misreading misunderstanding nature generally. out, took rights, represented break earlier precedent, (1965). Louisiana brought arguing illegally seized (1961). Mapp, final. "operates retrospectively finally period Mapp." 619-620, answering question, broke past practice assuming retroactivity, apply, prohibited applying, retrospectively." turned issue: "[W]e demerits application] looking history effect, *1049 retrospective operation retard operation." Under framework, prospectively. 639-640, year, Jersey denial precise (1966), prospectively, 732, imported Linkletter's mode 726-727, 1772. (1967), that, "no distinction instant various stages review." 300, 1967. No stage impact question: "Each distinct functions, justice, factors combine [to issue] inevitably vary [constitutional] involved." supra, 728, tied up surprising thoughtful scholars put discussing "[i]f exclusive rationale reversed." Mishkin, Foreword: High Great Writ, Time Law, Harv. 91, n. 132 precedents whatever wished. "[o]f decision." implication statement "under law," view, nowhere anything "a Daniel Louisiana, 32, 704, 42 790 (1975) surprise, then, *1050 indicate optional. 81, (the Lee Florida, 378, 2096, 1166 (1968), "is sought [that] decision" (emphasis added)). And, comply. Kitchens 847, 1089, McConnell Rhay, 2, 3-4, 6, nothing according lights, head (1973).[1] (1969). retroactively." People Mich. 84, 90, 3, 191 375, (1971). citing "apply present instruct ambiguous portion ..., Court." 2. reversing equivocal: "Since hearing approximately decided, proscriptions here." 57, preclude announced; rather, goes, "pending clarification." ante, 1042-1044. certainly most plausible rest reversal requiring debated explaining supports decisions," Trucking, J.), today's disagreeing dissent, 210, 4, STEVENS, J.). whichever read, offers *1051 majority's position, rules, flatly rejects failed told must. Meanwhile, begun pressing regard Linkletter. 256-269, (1969); 675-702, part). abandoned Noting "violates norms adjudication" "selective violates treating same," 322, 323, prosecutions federal, 328, 708 added). previous Two Yates Aiken, 484 211, 534, 98 546 (1988). South Francis Franklin, 471 307, 105 1965, 344 (1985), precedentsas 1035-1039 easily ground standards. Instead, "that theory unless" meets criteria flip side Griffith. 215, 534. argued, response, discussed "distinction found, should... review," 215-216, went on, Carolina's alternative argument "has proceedings," refuse proceeding." 217, familiarwhatever proposition, "plac[e] *1052 issues entertain proceedings." 218, "consider[s] duty Given this, come creature Yatesthat thing. completed project conforming Harlan. posed problem noting, understatement, "Linkletter led results." 302, 1060. light concerns, "`the review,'" Yates, 534), overruled steps: dispute States; final." coin, too "all federal." lead result. distinguish asked decided," able grounds. (citations Yatesa casemakes contemplated difference unqualified holding announced," 1060is enough reasons adopting invoked sovereigns. impression conveyed majority, that. finality: "Application seriously undermines essential system. Without finality, deprived deterrent *1053 responds "finality one." Ante, 1040-1041. mean all, touchstone judgment. (new final" radical assert "essential system," effect," undermined charged expounding. alone "evaluate, of" interests, 1040-1041, decides affords; leap hold, name retroactivity. noting disparate treatment appeal, unfortunate disparity 305, 316, "avoids resulting uneven defendants"). reducing predominantly interest. main uniform appeal. point, animates enforcing Story, writing nearly centuries ago "uniformity whole subjects [its] purview." Martin Hunter's Lessee, Wheat. 304, 347-348, 4 (1816). "fundamental principle" once single sovereign's all." Judicial Federalism, Case W. Res. (1985). state-law manner like. invites sort prevent. freedom loss neighboring State.[2] *1054 law"the Courtto differently through always emphasized turns 1731 (in "loo[k] operation"); 1772 ("Each involved"); 311-315, (deciding "places `certain primary, private "absolute prerequisite `implicit liberty'"). by carefully right. ___ - 1181-1184, (2007); Schriro Summerlin, 348, 353-354, 2519, 442 (2004); Sawyer 227, 243-245, 2822, 193 (1990); Penry Lynaugh, 492 318-319, 2934, 256 (1989). finds should, assessment right something say. directly determines Today's stands unfounded expounding former, latter. erroneous question. 1046-1047 ("It `retroactivity' `new rules' *1055 remedies"). Truckingpenned Teagueit "error" "equat[e] choice 194, emphasize, "[n]or sphere, principle." "While principles effects, .... defining operative events adjudicated old specify 195, Lemon Kurtzman, 411 192, 199, 1463, 151 (1973) (describing "whether obtained standard," contrasting "appropriate ask applied, asking law oldwill apply. special `remedial' reflects itself." Reynoldsville Casket Co. Hyde, 749, 758, 115 1745, 131 820 (1995). foregoing prompts lengthy rejoinder choice-of-law told, Justices Harper. 1043-1046. agreed retroactivitythat reviewshould criminal. judgment) ("I STEVENS' be"); 212, dissenting) ("Fundamental notions review"); 97, ("When applies controlling open review"). concurrence combined resolved why, explain: seen instance `a forward relation backward.' Northern R. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 *1056 358, 364, 145, 77 360 (1932). Once `backward,' remedies, i.e., prevailing awarded Subject thresholds, inquiry governed originates court. antecedent derives otherwise. 177-178[, 2323] opinion)." James B. Beam Distilling Georgia, 501 529, 534-535, 2439, 481 SOUTER, joined omitted; emphasis Quite contrary: omitted), treated questions, 100-102, explains "`creating law,'" "`declaring is.'" 1044 judgment)). us. improper position review everyone agrees follows "old" category Suppose, defendant, (correctly) overruled. defendant. uncontroversial nevertheless incorrect real way, who decide. caseis implications with, intuitive lie 1045, misses mark. remedy; old. believe, *1057 legally intuitively, apply.[3] onewhich ultimate is," Marbury, Cranch, 60should answer. ("Supremacy law" omitted)). rebut "source [our] authority" bind 1046-1047. cannot, doubted. Principles protect prerogative here, Constitutionspecifically, Amendment. prerogatives Clause. Consider today: interprets ruled retroactive, suppose otherwise, grant. highlights statute," 1039-1040even correctis here there.[4] Congress substantial ability mean. provisionswhen *1058 propositionand remedieswere Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty (AEDPA). 2254(d)(1). Whatever AEDPA's passage, AEDPA. Horn 536 272, 122 2147, 301 (2002) ("While AEDPA 2254(d), none post-AEDPA automatically standard, relieves addressing arguments"). apply; Lurking behind interpreting logic reasoning, evaluate independently. reserves 1034, confirming regards open. Nor suggesting nuanced approaches choice, recently Gonzalez-Lopez, 140, 126 2557, 165 409 (2006), rationale, nonetheless Gonzalez-Lopez prove prejudice, criterion irrelevant logic, misapplication Gonzalez-Lopezwhich showing 147-148, 2557but permutationsfrom State, rightare endless. * Perhaps dismissed fine parsing arcane precedents, reasonable Fair enough; hope said refute compelled stakeour reach, accompanying *1059 Danforth's matter. NOTES [1] drew shortly thereafter. (1989) ("Because determine, threshold matter, seeks unless exceptions" internal marks [2] passage states: "Danforth dictates asserts Associations, principles." 456 [3] Daniels 561 N.E.2d 487, (Ind.1990); Taylor Whitley, 606 So. 1292, 1296-1297 (La. 1992); 266-268 (Mo. 2003); Colwell 118 Nev. 807, 816-819, P.3d 463, 470-471 514, 517-518 (S.D.1990). [4] post-conviction 2255 (2000 ed., Supp. V), alter express issues. [5] may, sense "redressability" Cf. today [American (1987),] [an incorrect] is"). Unfortunately, likely create, alleviate, confusion terminology point. continue utilize vocabulary, shortcomings. [6] post-1867 reflected "softening" embrace detention sentence, adhered unavailable error go Bator, Finality Criminal Law Habeas Corpus Prisoners, 76 441, 471, 483-484 (1963); Hart, 1958 Term, Chart Justices, 73 103-104 (1959). [7] "[I]n (1942), openly discarded jurisdiction [of] fiction elseas disregard accused...." 79, [8] "necessarily [was] rendered." enunciated rendition opinion." 622, (footnote three-pronged 1772; (1967). [9] Haddad, "Retroactivity Should Rethought": Call End Doctrine, J.Crim. L., P.S. 417 [10] Rules type "are accurately characterized [Teague's] bar." 352, (2004). [11] Similarly, [12] "thoughtful scholar" believed broadly required. (1965)). idea "bound body fixed, overriding L.Rev., 62. footnote concludes reservation states [new rules] preferable pattern." 132, events, progeny assumption exist [13] Griffin 609, 1229, prosecutorial failure testify. involving errors automatic 22, Both Shott protected California potentially massive exodus prosecutors commented [14] plain generous wishes, commentators (1989), `in required' th[is] 818, Stith, Contrast Authority Grant Relief, 38 Val. U.L.Rev. 443 Thirty "disavowed" (1975), 148. Page Palmateer, 336 379, 133 explain infra, 1042-1044, misplaced, misguided. [15] Subsequent fashion. Brecht, 633, 634, 1710 (stating writ, look jurisprudence," identifying example). explicit. Day McDonough, 547 198, 1675, 164 376 (2006) (describing, having "created themselves, discretion [it was] implicates"); Withrow Williams, 680, 699, 407 (O'Connor, part) (listing illustration "federal exercising powers `prudential concerns' equity federalism"); 718, 1745 "gateways pass claim" "grounded courts" 317, (White, (characterizing "construing reach statutes" Griffith, "appear[s] underpinnings"); 332-333, (Brennan, unwarranted "[this Court's] statute"); 684, (Harlan, writ"). [16] motions vacate, aside, pursuant V). Much applications 2254 seems motions. Hayman, 342 72 263, 232 (1952) functional equivalent bring happened near prison). [17] Today, way. far tell, StatesMinnesota, Oregon, Montanahave view. Page, 133; 260. [18] held: "[W]henever judge severe affirmatively appear. Those objective information identifiable sentencing proceeding. factual data increased record, legitimacy reviewed appeal." 726, 2072. vindictive sentencing. 733-734, 2072 Douglas, [19] date, prevailed [20] twice subsequently improvidently granted. Moon Maryland, cert 975, 2135, 764, (1970), 398 90 1730, 26 262; Odom 399 904, 2203, 559, 400 23, 112, 27 122. decline predict high answer application, Infra, 90-91, Reply Brief Petitioner O.T.1972, 71-1005, p. ("People withheld Michigan"). [21] ("Payne stand expansive narrow constitutionally question"). [22] great length raising issues, refunding wanted [23] dissenters heavily authored Harlan, then-recent 649, tried, plurality, declined "there distinctions compelling sphere." 197, probably disagree suggestion acceptable refusing Mackey, 683, 1160 relevant, [24] Boyle Technologies Corp., 487 500, 504, 101 (1988) ("[W]e few areas, `uniquely interests,' pre-empted replaced, necessary, content prescribed courtsso-called `federal law'" Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 715, 99 1448, 711 (1979); Banco Nacional de Cuba Sabbatino, 398, 923, 11 804 (1964). came substantively expect system; (1987) ends appealcreates disuniformity, quickly brings appeals close. dissenters, 331-332, White, pertinent 327-328, 708. emphasizes chosen relatively rulefinalityto delineate presumptive nonretroactivity. arises balancing costs benefits Courtnot 50 sovereignshas performed. Erie Tompkins, 304 64, 817, 1188 (1938), well, Klaxon Stentor Elec. Mfg. 313 496, 61 1020, 1477 (1941). By token, applies. assertion, overstatement. odd interpretation; passing, 298, 2243the believes interpretingis all. cites majority. 15.

Category: 0