Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U.S. 156, 52 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

Cite as: 530 U. S. 156 (2000)

Stevens, J., dissenting

ity of setting aside the Domino's Pizza robbery verdict is at all more likely than the hypothetical future developments rejected in Simmons. This case thus falls squarely within Simmons.

Though it is unnecessary to decide it here, a guilty verdict is the proper line. A guilty verdict against the defendant is a natural breaking point in the uncertainties inherent in the trial process. Before that time, the burden is on the State to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A guilty verdict, however, means that the defendant's presumption of innocence—with all of its attendant trial safe-guards—has been overcome. The verdict resolves the central question of the general issue of guilt. It marks the most significant point of the adversary proceeding, and reflects a fundamental shift in the probabilities regarding the defend-ant's fate. For that reason, it is the proper point at which a line separating the hypothetical from the probable should be drawn. Moreover, because the State itself can use the defendant's prior crimes to argue future dangerousness after a jury has rendered a verdict—as Virginia did here, see supra, at 182-183, and n. 2—that is also the point at which the defendant's Simmons right should attach.

V

In Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 405 (2000) (opinion of O'Connor, J.), we stated the standard for granting habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1): "A state-court decision will certainly be contrary to our clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases." As I have explained, the Virginia Supreme Court applied Simmons as if (a) its applicability was controlled entirely by state law and (b) the defend-ant's parole ineligibility is determined at the exact moment when the sentencing phase occurs. See supra, at 184- 185. But state law does not control Simmons' applicability, nor does the due process right turn on whether the defend-

207

Page:   Index   Previous  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007