{
  "id": "RL32613",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32613",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100179,
      "date": "2004-09-28",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:08:10.721192",
      "title": "Standards For Retroactive Application Based Upon Groundbreaking Supreme Court Decisions in Criminal Law",
      "summary": "The Supreme Court is said to have announced a \"new rule\" when it hands down a decision that\naddresses an issue of law in a new way or for the first time. In criminal law new rules apply\nprospectively, but they also apply retroactively sometimes. Whether a new rule provides the basis\nfor overturning a past case depends on the nature of the new rule and where in the review process\na past case is located when the new rule is announced.\n  If the new rule is a substantive one, that is, if it declares that conduct previously outlawed may\nnot be criminalized, it applies retroactively. If the new is procedural, the issue is more complicated. \nThe new rule will not apply to any case in which the defendant has waived the right to the benefits\nof the new rule. The new rule will not apply where the failure to apply it in a past case was harmless\n(procedural defects that undermine the very structure of the trial process - secret trial, denial of the\nright to a lawyer, biased judges, and the like - are never harmless). A new rule will apply to a past\ncase if the case is still on direct appeal and if the defendant raised the issue in a timely manner before\nthe new rule was announced. If a case is still on direct appeal but the defendant failed to raise the\nissue in a timely manner, the new rule will only apply retroactively if the defendant can claim the\nbenefits of the plain error doctrine.\n  Those defendants who have reached the state of finality with their sentence which is an\nindication that they have exhausted their criminal appeal procedures, are not in as favorable position\nas those defendants who are on direct appeal. Errors raised on collateral review (essentially means\nthat the defendant is attacking the sentence or conviction in a manner other than through direct\nappeal) are reviewed under the more difficult harmless error standard for  habeas corpus \ncases. As\na general framework for analyzing the applicability of new rules to convictions that have already\nbecome final: New substantive rules apply retroactively, but new procedure rules do not. A\nprocedural rule applies retroactively only if it is a \"watershed rule of criminal procedure\" that\nimplicates the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding. In  Teague v.\nLane , the\nSupreme Court answered questions of retroactivity for cases on collateral review. In\n Teague , the\nCourt held that as a general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be\napplicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced. There are\ntwo exceptions: (1)  Teague  held that the new rule should apply retroactively if it places\na class of\nconduct beyond the power of the State to proscribe; and (2)  Teague  held that a new rule\nshould apply\nretroactively if the new constitutional rule is a \"watershed rule\" of criminal procedure \"implicating\nthe fundamental fairness of the criminal proceeding.\" Thus, if a court determines that the\nconstitutional rule at issue is a new procedural rule, it must determine when the defendant's\nconviction became final. Even if a  habeas  petition survives  Teague  analysis\nits claim to a new rule\nmay be impaired by restrictions on stale or repetitious petitions, failure to exhaust state remedies,\nor procedural default.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32613",
          "sha1": "bf2e6e54333a1a09dbe78b433abb20d0d770369f",
          "filename": "files/20040928_RL32613_bf2e6e54333a1a09dbe78b433abb20d0d770369f.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20040928_RL32613_bf2e6e54333a1a09dbe78b433abb20d0d770369f.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}