About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y Sidebar 1 (2007)

handle is hein.journals/dukjppsid3 and id is 1 raw text is: WHOR TON v. BOCKTING AND THE WATERSHED EXCEPTION OF TEA G UE v. LANE TADHG DOOLEY* I. INTRODUCTION In Whorton v. Bockting,' the Supreme Court considered whether its rule from Crawford v. Washington,' prohibiting the admission of testimonial hearsay statements without a prior opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the declarant, should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral appeal under the standard set forth in Teague v. Lane. The determination rested on whether Crawford announced a new rule that should be applied retroactively by virtue of its being a watershed rule of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.,4 In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Crawford did announce a new rule of criminal procedure, but that this rule does not fall within the Teague exception for watershed rules.' Therefore, the respondent could not benefit from the Crawford rule during the collateral review of his original state court conviction. The outcome of the case was not surprising given the high bar the Court has set for finding a watershed rule in decisions after Teague. Since the Teague standard was announced, the Court has not found a single rule that satisfies its requirements. However, prior to the * 2008 J.D. Candidate, Duke University School of Law. 1. Whorton v. Bockting, 127 S. Ct. 1173 (2007). 2. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 35 (2004). 3. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). 4. Bockting, 127 S. Ct. at 1181(quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 495 (1990)). 5. Id. at 1184. 6. See, e.g., Schiro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (rejecting retroactivity for Ring v. Arizona, 546 U.S. 584 (2002)); Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (2004) (rejecting retroactivity for Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988)); O'Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (1997) (rejecting retroactivity for Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994)); Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 (1993) (rejecting retroactivity for a new rule relating to jury instructions on homicide);

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most