Cases by Issue - Retroactivity

Schriro v. Summerlin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-526

Petitioner

Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Warren Wesley Summerlin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

542 U.S. 348 (2004)

Granted

Monday, December 1, 2003

Argued

Monday, April 19, 2004

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Advocates

Ken Murray (argued the cause for Respondent)

John Pressley Todd (argued the cause for Petitioner)

James A. Feldman (argued the cause for Petitioner, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

Warren Summerlin killed a loan collector with a hatchet in 1982 and was subsequently convicted of murder. He was sentenced to death by a state trial judge because of the heinous nature of the crime and his previous criminal history. He appealed the sentence, arguing that his attorney's romantic relationship with the prosecutor and the trial judge's proven use of marijuana had prevented him from receiving a fair trial, but the Arizona state courts rejected his appeals.

In June 2002, however, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Ring v. Arizona. The decision found that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial meant that only juries, not judges, could sentence someone to death. The Ring decision gave Summerlin new hope. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the decision changed the substance of the law rather than just the procedure used to apply it, and that it should therefore be applied retroactively. The state countered that the change dealt only with who did the actual sentencing, not with the burden of proof, and was therefore only procedural. Because procedural changes are not applied retroactively under the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Teague v. Lane, the state argued that Summerlin's sentence should be upheld. A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, siding instead with Summerlin and ordering the state to reopen his trial for re- sentencing.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Schriro, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

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.

Austria v. Altmann

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-13

Petitioner

Republic of Austria, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maria V. Altmann

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

541 U.S. 677 (2004)

Granted

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Argued

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Decided

Monday, June 7, 2004

Advocates

Scott P. Cooper (argued the cause for Petitioners)

E. Randol Schoenberg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas G. Hungar (argued the cause for Petitioners, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

Maria Altmann learned that the valuable artwork owned by her uncle had been either seized by the Nazi's or taken by Austria after World War II. She sued in American federal court to recover six paintings from the Austrian Gallery. She filed the suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which allows suits against foreign nations in cases involving "rights to property taken in violation of international law." Austria, however, claimed that the FSIA did not apply in this case because the paintings were taken in the 1940s, when the United States embraced a different - and more extensive - idea of immunity that would have barred the suit. Because the Act did not explicitly state that it applied retroactively (that is, to actions taken before it was passed) Austria claimed that it was entitled to this broader definition of immunity.

The district court sided with Altmann, holding that the FSIA applied retroactively. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Altmann, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1605

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-1603

Petitioner

Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

George E. Banks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

542 U.S. 406 (2004)

Granted

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Advocates

Ronald Eisenberg (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Albert J. Flora, Jr. (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1982, George Banks was sentenced to death in Pennsylvania for the murder of 13 people. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the conviction, Banks unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. Reversing the district court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found Banks's death sentence unconstitutional. The court held that jury instructions during sentencing led jurors to believe they could not vote against the death penalty unless they all agreed on mitigating evidence (that is, evidence that would have inclined them to vote against the death penalty). This, the court reasoned, violated the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Mills v. Maryland (1988). The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision (in part) and remanded it. Pointing to its opinion in Teague v. Lane (1989) and the fact that Mills was decided after Banks's conviction, the Court reasoned that the appeals court did not consider whether Mills could be "retroactively" applied. The Third Circuit Court - reviewing its ruling - did not change its original opinion. It found that "Mills did not announce a new rule of constitutional law for retroactivity purposes" and that Banks's death sentence was unconstitutional.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Beard, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

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.

O'Dell v. Netherland

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-6867

Petitioner

O'Dell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Netherland

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

521 U.S. 151 (1997)

Argued

Tuesday, March 18, 1997

Decided

Thursday, June 19, 1997

Advocates

Katherine P. Baldwin (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Robert S. Smith (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

At the penalty phase of Joseph Roger O'Dell's state trial on capital murder, rape, and sodomy charges, the government presented evidence that he had been convicted of numerous other offenses. The court, subsequently, denied O'Dell's request for a jury instruction that he was ineligible for parole if sentenced to life in prison. After the jury determined that O'Dell presented a future danger, he was sentenced to death. The District Court, in granting O'Dell habeas relief, found that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision 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 his future dangerousness, was not a "new rule" and, thus, entitled O'Dell to resentencing.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Netherland, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-8841

Petitioner

Powell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nevada

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

511 U.S. 79 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1994

Decided

Wednesday, March 30, 1994

Advocates

Miguel A. Estrada (as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Michael Pescetta (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Dan M. Seaton (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Powell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Yates v. Aiken

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-6060

Petitioner

Yates

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aiken

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 211 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1988

Advocates

Donald John Zelenka (on behalf of the Respondent)

David I. Bruck (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Yates, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Griffith v. Kentucky

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:19 +0000

Location

Circuit Court of Jefferson County

600 W. Jefferson St. Louisville KY 40202

Louisville, KY 40202

United States

38° 15' 14.5368" N, 85° 45' 38.2644" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5221

Petitioner

Griffith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 85-5731

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 314 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Advocates

William C. Bryson (Argued the cause for the United States)

Paul W. Richwalsky, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent in Griffith v. Kentucky)

Fred Haddad (Argued the cause for the petitioner in Brown v. United States)

J. Vincent Aprile, II (Argued the cause for the petitioner in Griffith v. Kentucky)

Facts of the Case

This case concerned the retrospective application of judge-made rules. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, combined with his call to the jury clerk, violated the black petitioner's right to an impartial jury. The Court was called upon to decide whether the previous decision in Batson v. Kentucky was applicable to pending litigation but not final when Batson was decided. This case was decided together with Brown v. United States.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Griffith, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

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.

Shea v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-5920

Petitioner

Shea

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 51 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, November 7, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1985

Advocates

Paul Joseph Carmcuche (on behalf of the Respondent)

Frances Baker Jack (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Shea, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Solem v. Stumes

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-2149

Petitioner

Solem

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stumes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 638 (1984)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 29, 1984

Advocates

Mark V. Meierhenry (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Timothy J. Mc Greevy (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Solem, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

United States v. Johnson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1608

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 537 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John F. Walter (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Johnson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Brown v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5364

Petitioner

Brown

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 323 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1980

Advocates

Thomas Chester (pro hac vice)

John M. Lawrence (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brown, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Hankerson v. North Carolina

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-6568

Petitioner

Hankerson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 233 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 1977

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hankerson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Bowen v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-6848

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 916 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 30, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

United States v. Peltier

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-2000

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Peltier

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 531 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Michigan v. Payne

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1005

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Payne

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

412 U.S. 47 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Michigan, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Robinson v. Neil

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6272

Petitioner

Robinson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Neil

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 505 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Robinson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Gosa v. Mayden

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-6314

Petitioner

Gosa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mayden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-1398

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 665 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mayden, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Adams v. Illinois

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5038

Petitioner

Adams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 278 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1971

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Williams v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Williams

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 646 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 21, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Mackey v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mackey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 667 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 21, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Hill v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hill

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 797 (1971)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1970

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 21, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

United States v. White

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:23 +0000

Location

United States

41° 51' 0.1188" N, 87° 39' 0.1872" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

James A. White

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 745 (1971)

Argued

Monday, November 10, 1969

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 20, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Advocates

Will R. Wilson (Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

John L. Boeger (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

A government informant, Harvey Jackson, wore a concealed radio transmitter and engaged in four conversations with defendant White at three different locations: Jackson's house, a restaurant, and Jackson's automobile. Government agents listened to each of the radio transmissions, thereby overhearing defendant White make self-incriminating remarks regarding his involvement in multiple narcotics transactions. Jackson was unavailable during the trial, so the prosecution offered the testimony of the agents who had conducted the electronic surveillance as evidence.

Question

Does the 4th Amendment bar from evidence the testimony of government agents relating certain conversations that occurred between a defendant and an undercover government informant, which the agents overheard while monitoring the frequency of a radio transmitter concealed on the body of that informant?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

No. The testimony of government agents, relating conversations between a defendant and an undercover informant, overheard via electronic surveillance, is admissible, despite the informant's unavailability at trial. This case expanded the principle announced in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). (Abstract prepared by Blaine Schmidt.)

Debacker v. Brainard

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Brainard

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Debacker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 28 (1969)

Argued

October 13-14, 1969

Decided

Wednesday, November 12, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brainard, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Jenkins v. Delaware

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

748

Petitioner

Jenkins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Delaware

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 213 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, March 5, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Delaware, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Frazier v. Cupp

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

643

Petitioner

Frazier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cupp

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 731 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Cupp, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

U.S. Coin & Currency

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 715 (1971)

Argued

February 25-26, 1969

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 20, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for U.S. Coin & Currency, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Kaiser v. New York

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Kaiser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 280 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Desist v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Desist

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 244 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Johnson v. New Jersey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

762

Petitioner

Johnson

Respondent

New Jersey

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 719 (1966)

Argued

March 1-2, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for New Jersey, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Tehan v. Shott

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Tehan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shott

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 406 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1965

Decided

Wednesday, January 19, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Tehan, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

Angelet v. Fay

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

578

Petitioner

Angelet

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fay

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 654 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, March 11, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Fay, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None

Linkletter v. Walker

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:00 +0000

Location

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

500 Poydras St New Orleans LA 70130

New Orleans, LA 70130

United States

29° 56' 55.6368" N, 90° 4' 3.2772" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Linkletter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Walker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 618 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, March 11, 1965

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1965

Advocates

H. Richard Uviller (Argued the cause for the National District Attorneys' Association, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance)

Euel A. Screws, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Teddy W. Airhart, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Victor Linkletter was convicted in state court on evidence illegally obtained by police prior to the Supreme Court decision concerning the Fourth Amendment in Mapp v. Ohio. Mapp applied the exclusionary rule to state criminal proceedings, denying the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial. Linkletter argued for a retrial based on the Mapp decision.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Walker, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

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.