Whorton v. Bockting

Background

Marvin Bockting, a man charged with sexually assaulting his six‑year‑old stepdaughter, was tried in Nevada after the child was too upset to testify. State law allowed the child’s mother and a detective to recount the child’s out‑of‑court statements if a judge found them trustworthy. A jury convicted Bockting. The Nevada Supreme Court had upheld admission of the statements under the then‑governing Roberts test. Years later the Supreme Court decided Crawford, which overruled Roberts.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Crawford’s rule about admitting testimonial out‑of‑court statements applies to cases already final on direct review. Using the Teague framework, the Court first found Crawford announced a new procedural rule because it explicitly overruled Roberts. The Court then examined Teague’s narrow “watershed” exception for rules necessary to prevent a serious risk of inaccurate convictions and to alter bedrock procedures. The Court concluded Crawford was not comparable to Gideon’s right to appointed counsel, did not assure a dramatic reduction in unreliable convictions, and did not reshape the core procedural elements essential to fairness. Therefore Crawford is not retroactive on collateral habeas review.

Real world impact

The decision means people whose convictions became final before Crawford cannot rely on Crawford in federal habeas proceedings, narrowing the pool of prisoners eligible for post‑conviction relief on Confrontation Clause grounds. It also resolves a split among appellate courts by making Crawford nonretroactive and returns to state courts and legislatures the task of addressing related evidentiary rules. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve widespread disagreement among lower courts.