Whorton v. Bocking

Supreme Court of the United States · Evidence

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseRetroactivityHabeas CorpusCrawfordTeaguenew ruleold rule

Facts

Respondent was convicted in Nevada of sexually assaulting a minor after the trial court admitted the child's out-of-court statements to her mother and a detective under a Nevada child-hearsay statute. The child was too distressed to testify at trial, and the trial court found the statements sufficiently trustworthy. On direct review, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld admission of the statements under Ohio v. Roberts. After Crawford later overruled Roberts and required prior opportunity for cross-examination before admitting testimonial statements of unavailable witnesses, respondent argued on federal habeas that Crawford should apply to his already-final conviction.

Issue

Whether, under Teague v. Lane, Crawford v. Washington applies retroactively to criminal cases that were already final on direct review when Crawford was decided. Specifically, the Court considered whether Crawford announced an old rule or a new one, and if new, whether it qualified as a watershed procedural rule.

Rule

Under Teague, an old rule applies on collateral review, but a new rule generally does not unless it is substantive or is a watershed rule of criminal procedure. A rule is new if it was not dictated by precedent existing when the conviction became final, and a watershed procedural rule must both be necessary to prevent an impermissibly large risk of an inaccurate conviction and alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Daniel Ruiz was convicted of robbery in 2001, and his conviction became final after direct review ended in 2003. In 2006, while pursuing federal habeas relief, he argues that a later Supreme Court decision expressly overruled the prior governing admissibility test used at his trial and should now control his case.

Under the majority's retroactivity framework, what is the strongest reason the later decision announced a new rule rather than an old one?

Explanation. Under Teague as applied by the majority, a rule is new if it was not dictated by precedent existing when the conviction became final. The Court emphasized that explicit overruling of prior governing precedent is enough to show a new rule. The fact that the later decision displaced the controlling admissibility rule means it was new, not old. (Derived from Whorton v. Bocking (n.d.).)