Griffith v. Kentucky

SCOTUSCase
Litigants= Griffith v. Kentucky
ArgueDate=February 14
ArgueYear=1986
DecideDate=January 13
DecideYear=1987
FullName= Griffith v. Kentucky
USVol=479
USPage=314
Holding=The Court held that after a new rule had been decided in a particular case, "the integrity of judicial review requires that we apply that rule to all similar cases pending on direct review."
SCOTUS=1986-1987
Majority=Blackmun
JoinMajority= Marshall, Powell Jr., Stevens, Scalia
Concurrence= Powell
Dissent= Rehnquist
Dissent2= White
JoinDissent2= Rehnquist, O'Connor
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. Amend. XIV "Griffith v. Kentucky", 479 U.S. 314 (1986), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Background

This case concerned the retrospective application of judge-made rules. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, combined with his call to the jury clerk, violated the black petitioner's right to an impartial jury. The Court was called upon to decide whether the previous decision in Batson v. Kentucky was applicable to pending litigation but not final when Batson was decided. This case was decided together with Brown v. United States.

Question

Could retroactive Supreme Court decisions be applied selectively to cases pending direct review or not yet final?

Holding

The Court held that after a new rule had been decided in a particular case, "the integrity of judicial review requires that we apply that rule to all similar cases pending on direct review." The Court reasoned that selective application of new rules violated the principle of treating similarly situated defendants on an equal basis. The Court also refused to make an exception to the rule of retroactivity in cases where there was a "clean break" with past precedent.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 479

External links

* [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_5221/ U.S. Supreme Court ruling and dissent from Oyez.org]
* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/479/314/case.html Full Text of the Majority Opinion and the Concurring Opinion]