January 5, 2005
Breaking Case News: Second Circuit Says Crawford Not Retroactive
The Second Circuit held last week in Mungo v. Duncan, 03-2706, and here, that Crawford v. Texas does not apply retroactively for purposes of collateral attack. "It settles an issue that could have affected scores, if not hundreds of cases," said Mark Dwyer, chief of appeals at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Full story from Findlaw.com here. [Mark Godsey]
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breaking Case News: Second Circuit Says Crawford Not Retroactive:
Were you convicted of crime because of hearsay?
Crawford and retroactivity. . .
In March 2005, the Ninth Circuit held that the Crawford rule (which redefines hearsay rules in all courts nationwide) is retroactive to cases not still pending on direct appeal. In the Bockting case the Court held that the defendant (a convicted child molester), was entitled to retroactive relief on a 2254.
See full case: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1886E09C54A4E27388256FB0005803BA/$file/0215866.pdf?openelement
The Court reasoned that it did not matter whether Crawford announced a new rule within the meaning of Teague because Bockting was entitled to relief either way. The court reasoned that Crawford announced a new PROCEDURAL rule, and therefore "Crawford merits retroactive application only if it implicates the fundamental fairness of the accuracy of the proceeding' [citations] and reworks our understanding of bedrock criminal procedure."
The Ninth Circuit then goes through a very eloquent discussion of both of these elements and finds that Crawford meets them both. Quoting from Scalia in Crawford, the Ninth Circuit notes that Crawford specifically dissaproves of the old Ohio v. Roberts 'trustworthiness' regime for hearsay rule exceptions. The Ninth also reasons that the because cross examination is a engine designed for improving accuracy of factfinding, and because Crawford re-works the rules of cross-examination, then the first part of the Teague test with respect to new procedural rules is met.
Moving on, the Ninth then distinguishes its rule of retroactivity from that announced by the Tenth Circuit.
Chip Venie is a criminal defense attorney in San Diego California. Mr. Venie has represented more than 600 defendants in state and federal criminal proceedings throughout California and the United States. Please call (619) 235-8300 for more information.
Posted by: Chip Venie | Apr 3, 2005 8:59:54 PM