Whorton v. Bockting
Encyclopedia
Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406
(2007), was a United States Supreme Court
case about the application of the Confrontation Clause
and whether Crawford v. Washington
applied retroactively. Justice Samuel Alito
, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that Crawford did not apply retroactively.
, was accused of sexual assault
of his wife Laura's six-year-old daughter. A police detective interviewed the victim in the presence of her mother, and physical evidence was gathered at a hospital. The grand jury
indicted Bockting on four counts of sexual assault on a minor under 14 years of age. The victim testified at the preliminary hearing, and Bockting was held over for trial.
At trial, the court held a hearing to determine whether the victim could testify. Finding that Autumn was too distressed to be sworn in, the State moved to allow Laura Bockting and the detective to recount the victim's statements to the jury. Under Nevada law, out-of-court statements made by a child under 10 years of age describing acts of sexual assault or physical abuse of the child may be admitted if the court finds that the child is unavailable or unable to testify and that "the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." The court found sufficient evidence of reliability to admit the testimony.
After hearing the evidence, the jury found Bockting guilty of three counts of sexual assault on a minor under the age of 14, and the court imposed two consecutive life sentences and another concurrent life sentence.
. That Court held that the admission of the testimony was constitutional.
Bockting then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
with the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
, making the same argument. The Court denied the petition, stating that Bockting was not entitled to relief under the habeas statute. Bockting appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
. While the appeal to the Ninth Circuit was pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Crawford v. Washington
, in which the Court held that testimony of witnesses absent from trial are admissible only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine
the witness. The Ninth Circuit held that Crawford applied retroactively, and reversed the lower court decision. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari
.
gave the unanimous opinion of the Court. "Because Crawford announced a new rule and because it is clear and undisputed that the rule is procedural and not substantive, that rule cannot be applied in this collateral attack on respondent’s conviction unless it is a watershed rul[e] of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding." There are two requirements for a holding to be a "watershed rule" First, the new rule must be "necessary to prevent an impermissibly large risk of an inaccurate conviction." Second, it must "alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding."
The Court found that the holding in Crawford did not meet the first requirement, as it was too limited in scope. It also did not meet the second requirement, in that it only slightly changed the cross-examination jurisprudence, but did not fundamentally alter it. Therefore, the Court held, it was not a "watershed rule" and did not apply retroactively to Bockting's case.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2007), was a United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case about the application of the Confrontation Clause
Confrontation Clause
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are...
and whether Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment...
applied retroactively. Justice Samuel Alito
Samuel Alito
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006....
, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that Crawford did not apply retroactively.
Facts
The respondent, Marvin Howard Bockting, of Las Vegas, NevadaLas Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Nevada and is also the county seat of Clark County, Nevada. Las Vegas is an internationally renowned major resort city for gambling, shopping, and fine dining. The city bills itself as The Entertainment Capital of the World, and is famous...
, was accused of sexual assault
Sexual assault
Sexual assault is an assault of a sexual nature on another person, or any sexual act committed without consent. Although sexual assaults most frequently are by a man on a woman, it may involve any combination of two or more men, women and children....
of his wife Laura's six-year-old daughter. A police detective interviewed the victim in the presence of her mother, and physical evidence was gathered at a hospital. The grand jury
Grand jury
A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether a criminal indictment will issue. Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing...
indicted Bockting on four counts of sexual assault on a minor under 14 years of age. The victim testified at the preliminary hearing, and Bockting was held over for trial.
At trial, the court held a hearing to determine whether the victim could testify. Finding that Autumn was too distressed to be sworn in, the State moved to allow Laura Bockting and the detective to recount the victim's statements to the jury. Under Nevada law, out-of-court statements made by a child under 10 years of age describing acts of sexual assault or physical abuse of the child may be admitted if the court finds that the child is unavailable or unable to testify and that "the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." The court found sufficient evidence of reliability to admit the testimony.
After hearing the evidence, the jury found Bockting guilty of three counts of sexual assault on a minor under the age of 14, and the court imposed two consecutive life sentences and another concurrent life sentence.
Procedural history
Bockting appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, alleging that by allowing the out-of-court statements to be read to the jury, the state had violated Bockting's confrontation clause rights under the Sixth AmendmentSixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
. That Court held that the admission of the testimony was constitutional.
Bockting then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
Habeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
with the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Nevada. The court has locations in Las Vegas and Reno....
, making the same argument. The Court denied the petition, stating that Bockting was not entitled to relief under the habeas statute. Bockting appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
. While the appeal to the Ninth Circuit was pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment...
, in which the Court held that testimony of witnesses absent from trial are admissible only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine
Cross-examination
In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination and may be followed by a redirect .- Variations by Jurisdiction :In...
the witness. The Ninth Circuit held that Crawford applied retroactively, and reversed the lower court decision. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
.
Issue
Did the holding in Crawford apply retroactively to judgments in criminal cases that are already final on direct review?Opinion of the Court
Justice Samuel AlitoSamuel Alito
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006....
gave the unanimous opinion of the Court. "Because Crawford announced a new rule and because it is clear and undisputed that the rule is procedural and not substantive, that rule cannot be applied in this collateral attack on respondent’s conviction unless it is a watershed rul[e] of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding." There are two requirements for a holding to be a "watershed rule" First, the new rule must be "necessary to prevent an impermissibly large risk of an inaccurate conviction." Second, it must "alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding."
The Court found that the holding in Crawford did not meet the first requirement, as it was too limited in scope. It also did not meet the second requirement, in that it only slightly changed the cross-examination jurisprudence, but did not fundamentally alter it. Therefore, the Court held, it was not a "watershed rule" and did not apply retroactively to Bockting's case.
See also
External links
- Whorton v. Bockting at supremecourt.gov (docket information)
- full text (HTML with links to precedent, statutes, and U.S. Constitution)