Term: 2006
Docket: 05-595
Glen Whorton, Director, Nevada Department Of Corrections v. Marvin Howard Bockting
- Pro
05-595 WHORTON V. BOCKTING DECISION BELOW:399 F3d 1010 CERT. GRANTED 5/15/2006 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: I. Whether, in direct conflict with the published opinions of the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that this Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) regarding the admissibility of testimonial hearsay evidence under the Sixth Amendment, applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. II. Whether the Ninth Circuit's ruling that Crawford applies retroactively to cases on collateral review violates this Court's ruling in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). III. Whether, in direct conflict with the published decisions of the Fourth and Seventh Circuits, the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (1) and (2) adopted the Teague exceptions for private conduct which is beyond criminal proscription and watershed rules. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 02-15866
In the case of Glen Whorton, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections v. Marvin Howard Bockting (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a new rule for criminal prosecutions is not applicable to cases on collateral review unless it falls within one of two exceptions: if it places certain kinds of primary conduct beyond the power of criminal law-making authority to proscribe or if it requires observance during trial proceedings. The court determined that Crawford v. Washington's testimonial evidence rule was neither and thus could not be applied retroactively in Bockting’s case who sought habeas corpus relief from his 1988 conviction for sexual assault against his six-year-old stepdaughter based on her out-of-court statements admitted at trial under Ohio v Roberts' reliability test which was later overruled by Crawford ruling.
In the dissenting opinion for Whorton v. Bockting, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on retroactivity and undermined the fundamental fairness of criminal trials. He contended that Crawford v. Washington, which established a new rule regarding testimonial hearsay evidence, should apply retroactively to cases on collateral review because it constituted a "watershed" rule of criminal procedure essential to an accurate determination of innocence or guilt. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to consider whether Crawford significantly enhanced fact-finding accuracy in trial proceedings by ensuring defendants could cross-examine witnesses against them - a key aspect of procedural fairness underpinning our justice system.
