Jones, Lackey, and Teague

40 Pages Posted: 5 Mar 2015 Last revised: 2 Apr 2015

See all articles by J. Richard Broughton

J. Richard Broughton

University of Detroit Mercy - School of Law

Date Written: February 28, 2015

Abstract

In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making the case for applying the bar, this paper adds to, and challenges, the existing literature on capital punishment, Lackey claims, and Teague doctrine. This paper dissects the Jones ruling on the application of Teague, examining the Supreme Court’s “new rule” case law and concluding that Lackey claims, when viewed at the appropriate level of generality, propose a new rule. It then addresses the more complicated aspect of applying Teague in this context, recognizing that the first Teague exception poses the most likely basis for avoiding the Teague bar on a Lackey claim. At a minimum, Lackey claims (like Miller v. Alabama claims, now the subject of substantial Eighth Amendment litigation on collateral review) sit at the intersection of procedural and substantive rules. Nonetheless, this paper makes the case for viewing the claim as procedural and therefore Teague-barred. Ultimately, then, this paper emphasizes a point that could substantially influence existing litigation: litigators and federal judges should take the Teague bar more seriously when considering Lackey claims on federal habeas review, particularly when viewed in light of modern habeas rules and doctrine that limit relief and protect the interests of the states. But the paper also emphasizes an important point about death penalty policy and politics: if the state is to have a death penalty at all, it should be prepared, and willing, to ensure that death sentences are actually carried out.

Keywords: death penalty, eighth amendment, criminal law, criminal procedure, constitutional law, supreme court, retroactivity, Teague v. Lane

Suggested Citation

Broughton, James Richard, Jones, Lackey, and Teague (February 28, 2015). John Marshall Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2573929 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2573929

James Richard Broughton (Contact Author)

University of Detroit Mercy - School of Law ( email )

651 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
77
Abstract Views
632
rank
312,157
PlumX Metrics