October Term 2000 · Docket 00-5961
Does the Cage rule apply to cases decided before it?
the side that brought the case seeks to apply a new jury instruction rule to his prior conviction. The state argues the rule applies only to future cases.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Larson argued the new rule corrects a structural error in his trial.
Mr. Feldman argued the new rule should not apply to past cases.
Mr. Heuer argued the new rule fits a specific legal exception.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 49-1
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a new legal standard for jury instructions applies to past convictions. the side that brought the case wants to use the new rule to challenge his sentence. The state argues the rule cannot change past verdicts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 49-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 16, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants to apply the new jury instruction rule to his case.
State wants to keep the new rule from applying to past cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 49-21
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the new rule corrects a fundamental error in his trial.
State argues the new rule should not apply retroactively to his case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 49-21
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 49-1
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether new legal standards can overturn old convictions. It affects the finality of criminal judgments nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 49-21
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 49-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 49-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.