O’dell v. Netherland

Summary

The Court held that the rule of Simmons v. South Carolina — requiring that a capital defendant be permitted to inform the sentencing jury that he is parole ineligible when the prosecution argues future dangerousness — was a 'new rule' under Teague v. Lane and therefore could not disturb a death sentence that had been final since October 3, 1988. Because Gardner and Skipper addressed information about the defendant's character and record rather than the extant postsentencing legal regime, and because Ramos and Caldwell left postsentencing disclosures to state policy choices, a reasonable jurist in 1988 would not have felt compelled to adopt Simmons; the rule also lacked the watershed character of Gideon needed for Teague's second exception. The en banc Fourth Circuit's judgment was affirmed. Justice Stevens, dissenting, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, would have held that Simmons was not new and, alternatively, that it was a watershed rule requiring retroactive application.