Griffith v. Kentucky

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsRetroactivityDirect ReviewCriminal Procedureretroactivitydirect reviewfinalityBatson

Facts

In Griffith's Kentucky trial, the prosecutor used four of five peremptory challenges to strike four of five prospective black jurors, and no black person remained on the jury. Defense counsel objected and asked the court to require the prosecutor to explain the strikes, but the request and motion to discharge the panel were denied; the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed under Swain. In Brown's federal trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike the remaining prospective black jurors after others were excused for cause, and he also made an improper comment to the jury clerk about getting as few black jurors as possible, though the lower courts found no effect on the jury's selection. Both defendants' cases were still pending on direct review when Batson was decided.

Issue

Whether the rule announced in Batson v. Kentucky applies retroactively to state and federal criminal cases that were pending on direct review or not yet final when Batson was decided. More broadly, the question was whether there should remain a 'clear break' exception to retroactive application of new criminal-procedure rules on direct review.

Rule

A new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions applies retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final. There is no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a clear break with the past.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a criminal case from Cleveland, Ohio, Darius Cole was convicted of aggravated assault. While his appeal was pending in the Ohio Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court announced a new constitutional rule requiring trial judges to give a particular limiting instruction before admitting a certain category of prosecution evidence, overruling prior precedent that had allowed admission without the instruction.

If Darius properly preserved the issue at trial and raised it on appeal, which is the strongest argument about whether the new rule applies to his case?

Explanation. The majority held that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions applies retroactively to all state and federal cases pending on direct review or not yet final. It specifically rejected any clear-break exception based on reliance or administrative burden for direct-review cases.