This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to George J. Chanos, crawford v. Washington should not apply retroactively on collateral review.
According to George J. Chanos, under Teague v. Lane, new rules of criminal procedure are generally not applied retroactively unless they are watershed rules that affect the likelihood of an accurate conviction.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Scalia asked: Is that the case in Federal courts, too?
Justice Kennedy asked: That's in an instruction, like Toomey v. Ohio. The judge is corrupt. It is just structural. You can't say that about Crawford, or can you?
Justice Ginsburg asked: What about the decision that said Ring v. Arizona was not retroactive on collateral?
Justice Alito asked: Is there any language in 2254(d) that could incorporate the Teague exceptions?
Justice Stevens asked Ms. Forsman: Were you a moot court finalist?
What each side argues
Petitioner: GLEN WHORTON, DIRECTOR NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
According to George J. Chanos, crawford v. Washington should not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Respondent: MARVIN HOWARD BOCKTING.
According to Forsman, the Nevada statute at issue was patterned after the Roberts decision.
According to Ms. Forsman, a retroactive rule made by this Court would apply to Mr. Bockting if he had not raised the issue earlier or had been procedurally defaulted.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 7d5fb00927f413bc1329-r1-740b212b43a48ca2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.