The Oyez Project: Criminal Procedure Issues - Retroactivity Decisions

Adams v. Illinois

No details yet.

Angelet v. Fay

No details yet.

Austria v. Altmann

Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 apply to actions that took place before its passage?

Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that, while the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 does not explicitly state that it should be applied to actions that took place before its passage, there are strong indications in the text of the statute that Congress intended it to apply retroactively. Justice Stevens wrote that, under the Act, immunity "claims are 'henceforth' to be decided by the courts. ... [T]his language suggests Congress intended courts to resolve all such claims 'in conformity with the principles set forth' in the Act, regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred."

Beard v. Banks

1. Does the Supreme Court's decision in Mills v. Maryland (1988) create a new rule of law that cannot be applied retroactively to award sentencing relief to a prisoner whose conviction became final before Mills was announced? 2. If Mills applies retroactively and a state supreme court rejects a Mills challenge because the jury was not told that it must unanimously agree on mitigating factors, is that decision consistent with Supreme Court precedent?

Ruling yes on the first question, the Court did not need to reach the second question. In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court found that the rule announced in Mills - that sentencing schemes could not prevent jurors from considering mitigating evidence that had not been accepted unanimously when deciding whether to apply the death penalty - was a new rule, because it was not compelled by previous Court decisions. As a new rule, it could only be applied retroactively if it was a "watershed rule[] of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding." Finding that it was not a watershed rule, the Court found that it could not be applied retroactively and that Beards' conviction was therefore constitutional.

Bowen v. United States

No details yet.

Brown v. Louisiana

No details yet.

Debacker v. Brainard

No details yet.

Desist v. United States

No details yet.

Gosa v. Mayden

No details yet.

Griffith v. Kentucky

Could retroactive Supreme Court decisions be applied selectively to cases pending direct review or not yet final?

The Court held that after a new rule had been decided in a particular case, "the integrity of judicial review requires that we apply that rule to all similar cases pending on direct review." The Court reasoned that selective application of new rules violated the principle of treating similarly situated defendants on an equal basis. The Court also refused to make an exception to the rule of retroactivity in cases where there was a "clean break" with past precedent.

Hankerson v. North Carolina

No details yet.

Hill v. California

No details yet.

Jenkins v. Delaware

No details yet.

Johnson v. New Jersey

No details yet.

Kaiser v. New York

No details yet.

Linkletter v. Walker

Did the exclusionary rule established in Mapp v. Ohio apply retroactively?

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the Constitution neither prohibited nor required "an absolute rule of retroaction." Only a case-by-case examination of the rules in question was required. The Court reasoned that police misconduct prior to Mapp had already occurred and would not be corrected by releasing the prisoners involved. The Court also argued that applying the Mapp decision retroactively to all cases would threaten the "delicate state-federal relationship" and would "tax the administration of justice to the utmost." Only cases on direct review at the time of the Mapp ruling or later cases would be subject to retroactive consideration.

Mackey v. United States

No details yet.

O'Dell v. Netherland

Is the rule set forth in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, which requires that a capital defendant be permitted to inform his sentencing jury that he is parole-ineligible if the prosecution argues that he presents a future danger, new and thereby inapplicable to an already final death sentence?

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the rule was new, and that it could not be used to disturb O'Dell's death sentence, which had been final for six years when Simmons was decided. Justice Thomas reasoned that the rule was new within the meaning of Teague v Lane, 489 U.S. 288. Moreover, Justice Thomas wrote that the rule was not a watershed rule of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding, so as to fall within an exception to Teague, thus making it applicable to O'Dell. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, arguing that the rule was not new and, if it was, its importance to the accuracy and fairness of a capital sentencing proceeding placed it within an exception to Teague.

Powell v. Nevada

No details yet.

Robinson v. Neil

No details yet.

Schriro v. Summerlin

Was the change announced by the Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona substantive in nature and therefore retroactively applicable?

No. In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the changed announced in Ring v. Arizona was merely procedural and therefore not retroactively applicable. Justice Scalia wrote, "[W]e give retroactive effect to only a small set of 'watershed rules of criminal procedure implementing the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.' That a new procedural rule is 'fundamental' in some abstract sense is not enough; the rule must be one 'without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished." (Italics Scalia's, citation omitted). Because the Court could not confidently say that fact-finding by a judge rather than a jury seriously diminished accuracy, it could not apply its Ring ruling retroactively.

Shea v. Louisiana

No details yet.

Solem v. Stumes

No details yet.

Tehan v. Shott

No details yet.

United States v. Johnson

No details yet.

United States v. Peltier

No details yet.

United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency

No details yet.

Williams v. United States

No details yet.

Yates v. Aiken

No details yet.