Supreme Court: 2004 access-to-accuser ruling not applied retroactively

The decision not to apply the watershed ruling to past cases has the potential to shut out thousands.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

posted February 28, 2007

Page 1 of 2

The US Supreme Court walked a very careful line on Wednesday when it ruled that it would not apply a major 2004 decision retroactively.

On one hand, a retroactive ruling would almost certainly have triggered a flood of disruptive appeals in courthouses across the country. On the other hand, the justices could not deny that their decision – involving the right to one's accusers – marked an important change in the law.

The high-wire act was performed by Justice Samuel Alito who wrote for a unanimous court that while the 2004 decision was important, it was not so important that it must be applied retroactively.

In concrete terms, the decision means that a Nevada man serving a life sentence in prison may not reopen his case to question his stepdaughter about sexual-abuse accusations she made 18 years ago when she was 6 years old.

In effect, the Supreme Court declined to open the courthouse doors for Marvin Bockting to challenge his conviction. The ruling also shuts out potentially thousands of others convicted in trials in which they were denied the opportunity to confront their accusers in open court.

At issue in Mr. Bockting's case was whether the high court would apply retroactively its 2004 holding that defendants must be given a chance to cross-examine or otherwise confront witnesses against them in their trials.

The 2004 case called Crawford v. Washington struck down a rule that allowed such evidence if a judge deemed the statement reliable enough.

The majority justices in the Crawford case said such practices by judges violated the constitutional principle behind the confrontation clause. In the context of an adversarial trial, one of the most efficient ways for a judge or jury to ascertain the truth is to give the accused the right to confront in open court those making the accusations.

It is the accused who often knows of ulterior motives of certain witnesses. And the accused is often in a better position than investigators, judges, or juries to identify when a witness is lying or exaggerating.

But having decided the Crawford case, the high court faced another important issue: Should that major decision be applied retroactively?

Page 1 | 2 | Next Page