Danforth v. Minnesota — Quick Summary

In Brief

Danforth v. Minnesota is a landmark U.S.

Key Issue

Can a state court provide greater retroactive effect to new federal constitutional rules in state post-conviction proceedings than the U.S. Supreme Court requires under Teague v. Lane?

The Rule

States are not bound by the Teague v. Lane standard on retroactivity when deciding the extent to which federal constitutional rules of criminal procedure will be given retroactive effect in state post-conviction proceedings.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court held that the Teague rule on retroactivity does not prevent states from applying new constitutional rules of criminal procedure to cases on state collateral review, thus permitting each state to apply its own standard of retroactivity that could be broader than the federal standard.

Why It Matters