549 U.S. 406 (2007)
Marvin Bockting resided in Las Vegas, Nevada, with his wife Laura Bockting, their three-year-old daughter Honesty, and Laura’s six-year-old daughter Autumn from a prior relationship.1 One night while Bockting was at work, Autumn awoke from a dream crying and, after reassurance from her mother, described repeated sexual assaults by Bockting, noting that he had warned her not to tell.2 Laura confronted Bockting the next day, and he left the home while denying the allegations.3
Two days later, Laura contacted a rape crisis hotline and took Autumn to a hospital for examination, where Detective Charles Zinovitch of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ordered a rape exam that produced physical evidence of assaults.4 Detective Zinovitch later interviewed Autumn in her mother’s presence, during which she gave a detailed account of the assaults and demonstrated the acts using anatomically correct dolls.5 Bockting was arrested and a state grand jury indicted him on four counts of sexual assault on a minor under fourteen years of age.6
At the preliminary hearing, Autumn testified that she knew the difference between truth and lies but became distressed and could not recall how Bockting had touched her or what she had told others.7 The trial court nonetheless bound Bockting over for trial based on the accounts from Laura Bockting and Detective Zinovitch.8 At trial, Autumn proved too distressed to be sworn in as a witness, prompting the State to seek admission of her out-of-court statements through the testimony of her mother and the detective pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385.9
The trial court admitted the statements over defense objection.10 The jury convicted Bockting of three counts of sexual assault on a minor under the age of fourteen, resulting in two consecutive life sentences and one concurrent life sentence.11 Bockting appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which issued its final decision in 1993 affirming the conviction.12
The state court applied the then-controlling precedent of Ohio v. Roberts to uphold the admission of Autumn’s statements based on particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, including the spontaneity of her initial disclosure and her use of anatomically correct dolls.13 Bockting subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which denied relief.14 While his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Crawford v. Washington.15
A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Crawford applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.16 The Ninth Circuit’s decision created a conflict with every other court of appeals and state supreme court that had considered the retroactivity of Crawford.17 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.18
Whether Crawford v. Washington is retroactive to cases already final on direct review under the Teague v. Lane framework?19
Under the Teague v. Lane framework, an old rule applies both on direct and collateral review, but a new rule is generally applicable only to cases that are still on direct review. A new rule applies retroactively in a collateral proceeding only if the rule is substantive or the rule is a watershed rule of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding. This exception is extremely narrow.20
No. Marvin Bockting's conviction became final on direct appeal in 1993 when the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed it. Crawford was decided in 2004 and announced a new procedural rule that overruled the Roberts precedent applied by the state court to admit Autumn's out-of-court statements. Because the rule is procedural and not substantive, it cannot apply retroactively unless it qualifies as a watershed rule. The Crawford rule fails both prongs of the watershed test when measured against the established facts of Bockting's trial and the limited scope of the change from Roberts.2122
Crawford v. Washington is not retroactive to cases already final on direct review under the Teague v. Lane framework.23
Whether Crawford v. Washington announced a new rule under Teague v. Lane?24
Yes. At the time Bockting's conviction became final in 1993, the governing precedent was Ohio v. Roberts, which permitted admission of unavailable declarant hearsay statements upon a finding of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Crawford flatly overruled Roberts and replaced it with a requirement of prior cross-examination for testimonial statements. The Crawford rule was therefore not dictated by existing precedent and constitutes a new rule under the Teague definition.27
Crawford v. Washington announced a new rule under Teague v. Lane.28
Whether the Crawford rule qualifies as a watershed rule of criminal procedure that applies retroactively on collateral review?29
No. The Crawford rule does not eliminate an intolerably high risk of unreliable verdicts in the sweeping manner of Gideon. While Crawford restricts some testimonial hearsay, it simultaneously removes Confrontation Clause protection for nontestimonial statements that Roberts had screened for reliability. The net effect on accuracy is unclear and far less direct than the appointment of counsel for indigent felony defendants. The rule also lacks the primacy and centrality of Gideon and therefore does not alter bedrock procedural elements essential to fairness when applied to the facts of Bockting's case.33
The Crawford rule does not qualify as a watershed rule of criminal procedure that applies retroactively on collateral review.34