Stephen Danforth v. Minnesota (552 U.S. 264)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 20, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 552 U.S. 264 · 128 S. Ct. 1029
- Decided
- February 20, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
128 S. Ct. 1029 (2008) Stephen DANFORTH, Petitioner, v. MINNESOTA. No. 06-8273. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 31, 2007. Decided February 20, 2008. *1032 Benjamin J. Butler, Minneapolis, MN, for petitioner. Patrick C. Diamond, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent. Benjamin J. Butler, Counsel of Record, Assistant Minnesota State Public Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Assistant Minnesota State Public Defender, Office of the Minnesota State Public Defender, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Petitioner. Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General, Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Patrick C. Diamond, Counsel of Record, Deputy County Attorney, Jean Burdorf, Assistant County Attorney, Office of the Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent. Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. New constitutional rules announced by this Court that place certain kinds of primary individual conduct beyond the power of the States to proscribe, as well as "watershed" rules of criminal procedure, must be applied in all future trials, all cases pending on direct review, and all federal habeas corpus proceedings. All other new rules of criminal procedure must be applied in future trials and in cases pending on direct review, but may not provide the basis for a federal collateral attack on a state-court conviction. This is the substance of the " Teague rule" described…
Excerpt of a 101,143-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.