520
Opinion of the Court
class of persons. E. g., Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484, 494-495. Lambrix does not contend that the second exception—for watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the criminal proceeding's fundamental fairness and accuracy—applies to Espinosa errors, and Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 241-244, makes clear that it does not. Pp. 539-540. 72 F. 3d 1500, affirmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 540. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 546.
Matthew C. Lawry, by appointment of the Court, 519 U. S. 1005, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Mark Evan Olive.
Carol M. Dittmar, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General.*
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari in this case to consider whether a prisoner whose conviction became final before our decision in Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U. S. 1079 (1992) (per curiam), is foreclosed from relying on that decision in a federal habeas corpus proceeding because it announced a "new rule" as defined in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989).
I
On February 5, 1983, Cary Michael Lambrix and his girlfriend, Frances Smith, met Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant at a local tavern. The two couples returned to Lambrix's trailer for dinner, where Lambrix killed Moore and Bryant in brutal fashion. Lambrix was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder. In the sentencing phase of trial, the jury rendered an advisory verdict recommending
*Kent S. Scheidegger filed a brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007