## Facts

- Marvin Howard Bockting was charged and convicted in Nevada state court of sexually assaulting his six-year-old stepdaughter.
- The child gave detailed statements to a police detective, with the child’s mother present, describing the assaults.
- After a pretrial hearing, the trial judge found the child too distressed to be sworn and therefore unavailable to testify.
- Under a Nevada statute allowing certain child-victim hearsay if accompanied by guarantees of trustworthiness, the court admitted the mother’s and detective’s testimony recounting the child’s statements.
- The admission was upheld under then-controlling federal Confrontation Clause doctrine permitting certain hearsay from unavailable witnesses if sufficiently reliable.
- Bockting received two consecutive life sentences plus another concurrent life term.
- After his conviction became final, the Supreme Court revised Confrontation Clause doctrine for “testimonial” hearsay, requiring unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
- On federal habeas review, the Ninth Circuit held this revised doctrine applied retroactively as a “watershed” rule and granted relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the Confrontation Clause rule announced in *Crawford v. Washington* applies retroactively on collateral review under *Teague v. Lane* as a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held *Crawford* announced a “new” rule for *Teague* purposes.
- The Court held *Crawford* is procedural, not substantive.
- The Court held *Crawford* is not a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure and therefore does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Teague v. Lane*, “new” rules generally do not apply retroactively on collateral review, subject to limited exceptions.
- A rule is “new” if it was not dictated by precedent when the conviction became final; overruling prior doctrine strongly indicates newness.
- Substantive rules (changing the scope of criminal liability or placing conduct/persons beyond punishment) may apply retroactively; rules governing the admissibility of evidence and trial procedures are procedural.
- The “watershed” exception is exceptionally narrow; a qualifying rule must both (1) be necessary to prevent an impermissibly large risk of inaccurate convictions and (2) constitute a bedrock procedural element essential to fundamental fairness.
- Changes to Confrontation Clause doctrine, even significant ones, do not qualify as watershed absent a showing of a major, demonstrated improvement in trial accuracy and a transformation comparable to the right to counsel.

## Conclusion

The Court held that *Crawford*’s testimonial-hearsay confrontation requirement is a new procedural rule that is neither substantive nor “watershed” under *Teague*, so it does not apply retroactively to reopen convictions final before *Crawford* on federal habeas review.


Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007)