## Facts

- Frank Dean Teague was convicted in Illinois state court of attempted murder, armed robbery, and aggravated battery by an all-white jury.
- During voir dire, the prosecutor used all peremptory challenges to strike Black prospective jurors.
- Teague twice moved for a mistrial, arguing he was entitled to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section; the trial court denied the motions.
- After unsuccessful direct review in Illinois courts, Teague filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- In federal court, Teague argued that the jury-selection process violated the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement and sought relief based on later-developing limits on discriminatory peremptory challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether a state prisoner on federal habeas may obtain relief based on a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure announced after the conviction became final.
2. Whether Teague could benefit on habeas from a rule barring race-based peremptory strikes (or an extension of fair-cross-section doctrine) not dictated by precedent when his conviction became final.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief.
- The Court adopted a general bar on applying new constitutional rules of criminal procedure retroactively in federal habeas cases.
- The Court recognized two narrow exceptions for retroactive application on habeas: certain substantive rules and certain fundamental procedural rules affecting accuracy.
- The rule Teague sought would be a new procedural rule and did not fall within either exception; therefore, it could not be applied on collateral review.

## Legal Principles

- A “new rule” is announced when a decision breaks new ground, imposes a new obligation on government, or when the result was not dictated by precedent at the time the conviction became final.
- On federal habeas review, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure generally do not apply to convictions that were final before the new rule was announced.
- Exception 1 (substantive rules): retroactive effect is permitted for rules that place certain conduct beyond criminal punishment or bar certain punishments for a class of defendants.
- Exception 2 (fundamental procedural rules): retroactive effect is limited to rare rules essential to fundamental fairness and the accuracy of convictions.
- When a habeas petitioner’s claim requires adoption of a new procedural rule outside these exceptions, relief is unavailable even if the proposed rule would govern future cases or cases on direct review.

## Conclusion

Teague established that federal habeas courts ordinarily may not grant relief based on new constitutional rules of criminal procedure announced after a state conviction becomes final, limiting retroactivity to narrow substantive changes and a highly restricted category of fundamental procedural rules.


Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)