Citation network
Whorton Vs. Bockting
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 28, 2007
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Syllabus October Term, 2006 Whorton V. BocktingSearch
-
s statements constitutional under Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Court denied. While his appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit, this Court overruled Roberts in Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 484 , 495 (quoting Teague v. LaneSearch
-
of an inaccurate conviction, Summerlin , supra, at 356. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
s do not qualify. Beard v. BanksSearch
-
F. 3d 1127, reversed and remanded. Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Whorton v. BocktingSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Whorton V. BocktingSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Court of the United States No. 05-595 Glen Whorton, Director, Nevada Depart- Ment of Corrections, Petitioner V. MarvinSearch
-
delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether, under the rules set out in Teague v. LaneSearch
-
U. S. 288 (1989), our decision in Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Nevada v. BocktingSearch
-
s out-of-court statements had violated his Confrontation Clause rights, the Nevada Supreme Court looked to Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
U. S. 56 (1980), which was then the governing precedent of this Court. See Bockting v. StateSearch
-
Order in Bockting v. BayerSearch
-
U. S., at 59. See also Davis v. WashingtonSearch
-
reversed the District Court, holding that Crawford applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Bockting v. BayerSearch
-
collateral review, but a new rule is generally applicable only to cases that are still on direct review. See Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
ibid. (quoting Tyler v. CainSearch
-
Dell v. NetherlandSearch
-
the requirements for watershed status. See, e.g., Summerlin, supra (rejecting retroactivity for Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 406 (2004) (rejecting retroactivity for Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
Dell, supra (rejecting retroactivity for Simmons v. SouthSearch
-
U. S. 227 (1990) (rejecting retroactivity for Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
conviction. Summerlin , supra, at 366. Guidance in answering this question is provided by Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
is denied representation, Gideon held, the risk of an unreliable verdict is intolerably high. See Mickens v. TaylorSearch
-
s appeal in 1989, Bockting v. StateSearch
-
s petition for a writ of certiorari and vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Idaho v. WrightSearch
-
U. S. 805 (1990), see Bockting v. NevadaSearch
-
relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, because that statute incorporates our Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Footnote 4 See, e.g., Lave v. DretkeSearch
-
Espy v. MassacSearch
-
Murillo v. FrankSearch
-
Dorchy v. JonesSearch
-
Brown v. UphoffSearch
-
Mungo v. DuncanSearch
-
Edwards v. PeopleSearch
-
Ennis v. StateSearch
-
Danforth v. StateSearch
-
State v. WilliamsSearch
-
Chandler v. CrosbySearch
-
Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial