The Supreme Court’s habeas corpus retroactivity jurisprudence has never been a model of clarity or fairness. Ordinarily, if a case is on direct review, a court is bound to apply constitutional law as it currently stands, not the law as it stood at the time of trial, conviction, or sentencing. This rule derives fromGriffith v. Kentucky,in which the Supreme Court held that the Constitution requires that all new constitutional rules apply to cases on direct review. However, inTeague v. Lane, the Court distinguished direct and collateral review, holding that new constitutional rules do not apply to cases on collateral review unless they fall within one of two exceptions. The Court has justified this approach to retroactivity by emphasizingcomity, respect for the judicial process of the state courts, andfinality, the closure a judgment of conviction is supposed to bring. This retroactivity test is not only complex but also produces disparate impacts on similarly situated individuals. For this reason and many others, legal scholars have long criticized theTeaguedoctrine; as Justice Gorsuch recently acknowledged, the Teague doctrine has been “mystifying . . . from its inception.” And in May 2021, the Court walked back the thirty-year-old doctrine inEdwards v. Vannoy, recognizing that one of the two Teague exceptions is “moribund” and “retain[s] no vitality.”

中文翻译：

---

刑事诉讼中的终结性、礼让性和追溯性

最高法院的人身保护令追溯法从未成为清晰或公平的典范。通常，如果案件正在接受直接审查，法院必须适用当前的宪法法律，而不是审判、定罪或判刑时的法律。该规则源自格里菲斯诉肯塔基州案，最高法院在该案中认为，宪法要求所有新的宪法规则都适用于直接审查的案件。然而，在Teague v. Lane 一案中，法院区分了直接审查和附带审查，认为新宪法规则不适用于附带审查的案件，除非它们属于两种例外情况之一。法院通过强调礼让、尊重州法院的司法程序和终局性来证明这种追溯性方法是合理的，定罪判决应该带来的终结。这种追溯测试不仅复杂，而且会对处境相似的个人产生不同的影响。出于这个原因和其他许多原因，法律学者长期以来一直批评茶道学说。正如戈萨奇法官最近承认的那样，蒂格学说一直“令人迷惑不解。. . 从一开始。” 2021 年 5 月，法院推翻了在 Edwards v. Vannoy 案中已有 30 年历史的原则，承认蒂格的两个例外之一是“垂死”和“没有活力”。. . 从一开始。” 2021 年 5 月，法院推翻了在 Edwards v. Vannoy 案中已有 30 年历史的原则，承认蒂格的两个例外之一是“垂死”和“没有活力”。. . 从一开始。” 2021 年 5 月，法院推翻了在 Edwards v. Vannoy 案中已有 30 年历史的原则，承认蒂格的两个例外之一是“垂死”和“没有活力”。