Court query on Teague retroactivity
on Mar 21, 2007 at 10:40 am
The Supreme Court indicated on Tuesday that at least some Justices are interested in claims by state prisoners that they should be able to get more retroactive benefit out of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that lay down new rules of criminal procedure. The Court’s electronic docket shows an order asking the state of Minnesota to discuss that question.
Here is the inquiry the Court posed in the pending case of Danforth v. Minnesota (06-8273): “Are state supreme courts required to use the standard announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), to determine whether United States Supreme Court decisions apply retroactively to state-court criminal cases, or may a state court apply state-law or state-constitution-based retroactivity tests that afford application of Supreme Court decisions to a broader class of criminal defendants than the class defined by Teague?” (emphasis added) The Danforth petition can be found here.
A number of state courts have divided on that question.
In the case of Stephen Danforth, who filed the petition in 06-8273, the Minnesota Supreme Court declared: “Danforth argues that Teague dictates the limits of retroactive application of new rules only in federal habeas corpus proceedings and does not limit the retroactive application of new rules in state postconviction proceedings. Danforth is incorrect when he asserts that state courts are free to give a Supreme Court decision of federal constitutional criminal procedure broader retroactive application than that given by the Supreme Court….We cannot apply state retroactivity principles when determining the retroactivity of a new rule of federal constitutional criminal procedure if the Supreme Court has already provided relevant federal principles.” (emphases in original)
The Minnesota court, though, noted that other state courts have declined to apply Teague‘s retroactivity principles or have found they could apply those principles as a matter of choice only. It cited decisions in Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada and South Dakota.
In Danforth’s case, the Supreme Court decision that he wanted to apply retroactively to his criminal case was Crawford v. Washington, a 2004 ruling limiting use at trial of out-of-court “testimonial statements” that had not been subject to cross-examination.. The Minnesota court, applying Teague, ruled that Crawford was not to be applied retroactively in state cases. In that regard, the state court anticipated what the Supreme Court itself would decide in Whorton v. Bockting (05-595) on Feb. 28.
But, Danforth’s public defender lawyers have argued that, if the retroactivity question is governed not by Teague but by Minnesota law, Danforth would be able to take advantage of the Crawford ruling in his criminal sexual conduct case involving a six-year-old boy; his conviction became final no later than 1999.
Under Teague v. Lane, a criminal law decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is generally not applicable to state cases where the conviction had become final and the prisoner is making a post-conviction challenge. But a new rule does apply retroactively if the rule is “a watershed rule of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” The Court has never found a new procedure ruling that qualifies for retroactivity under Teague.
Danforth’s lawyer filed his Supreme Court appeal on Dec. 6, and the state of Minnesota opted not to respond. The petition raised two issues — the first was the question about federal vs. state retroactivity principles, and the second was specifically about Crawford retroactivity. The Court in January asked for a response. The state filed a brief opposing review on Feb. 12, but only responded to the second question, arguing that Crawford should not be applied retroactively.
Danforth’s defender replied to that, arguing that the state had acted as if the second question were the only one raised. The retroactivity issue, the reply said, is of “vital importance to state courts, state-court practitioners, state-court judges, state-court prosecutors, and state-court defendants. This Court should grant certiorari of this case to answer it.”
The case had been set for Conference on March 16, but the Court took no action on it then. The case obviously had been held pending the ruling in Whorton. After the petition was set for Conference this week, the Court on Tuesday asked the state for a further response, dealing with the Teague question as Danforth’s lawyer had phrased it. It is unclear how many Justices concurred in asking the question.
By raising it, however, the Court put off consideration. The state’s response on the Teague point is due April 19. Danforth’s lawyer will be able to file a reply.
