Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1213153
 
 

Footnotes (490)



 


 



The Future of Teague Retroactivity, or 'Redressability,' after Danforth v. Minnesota: Why Lower Courts Should Give Retroactive Effect to New Constitutional Rules of Criminal Procedure in Postconviction Proceedings


Christopher N. Lasch


University of Denver Sturm College of Law

August 8, 2008

American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 46, 2009

Abstract:     
Although the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Teague v. Lane generally prohibits the application of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure in federal habeas review of state-court judgments, the Court's 2008 decision in Danforth v. Minnesota frees state courts from Teague's strictures. Danforth explicitly permits state courts to fashion their own rules governing the retroactive application of new federal constitutional rules in postconviction proceedings, and leaves open the question whether lower federal courts are bound by Teague in postconviction review of federal criminal convictions.

In this Article, I examine the doctrinal underpinnings of the Court's retroactivity jurisprudence, and propose that state courts and the lower federal courts abandon the Supreme Court's experiment with nonretroactivity. Affording retroactive application to new constitutional rules in state and federal postconviction proceedings promotes fairness to litigants and uniformity in the development of federal constitutional criminal doctrine. Perhaps most importantly, a rule of retroactivity permits the lower state and federal courts to regain a role in the development of constitutional doctrine that had previously been constricted, first by Teague and then by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

My examination of the Danforth opinion leads me to believe that the foundations upon which Teague was built are now crumbling. Danforth marks a shift in the Court's conception of the function of habeas corpus which portends well for the reinvigoration of a constitutional dialogue among the lower courts and an increased role in constitutional development for the lower federal courts.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 79

Keywords: Teague, Danforth, retroactivity, habeas, postconviction, criminal

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 11, 2008 ; Last revised: December 9, 2008

Suggested Citation

Lasch, Christopher N., The Future of Teague Retroactivity, or 'Redressability,' after Danforth v. Minnesota: Why Lower Courts Should Give Retroactive Effect to New Constitutional Rules of Criminal Procedure in Postconviction Proceedings (August 8, 2008). American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 46, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1213153

Contact Information

Christopher N. Lasch (Contact Author)
University of Denver Sturm College of Law ( email )
2255 E. Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
United States
303-871-6368 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,409
Downloads: 162
Download Rank: 102,609
Footnotes:  490

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.781 seconds