The case of Glen Whorton, director, Nevada Department of Corrections v. Marvin Howard Bockting served to clarify whether another recent court decision, that of Crawford v. Washington, could be applied retroactively. Marvin Bockting was charged with, and convicted of, three counts of sexually assaulting a minor under 14. Two consecutive life sentences and a concurrent life sentence were imposed. The victim, his stepdaughter, did not testify in the case due to emotional distress, as allowed by Nevada law. Bockting's wife and the detective in the case both testified, reporting what the child had said and medical evidence of sexual assault was also presented at trial.
Bockting first appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, and his appeal was denied in 1993. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the child's statements were admissible due to "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" as set out in the US Supreme Court decision Ohio v. Roberts. Bockting then filed a petition of habeas corpus, which was denied by the district court, and during this time, the United States Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington. The state district courts conflicted as to whether Crawford v. Washington could be applied retroactively, and the US Supreme Court defined Crawford v. Washington as a procedural rule and not a substantive one, thus limiting its implications to those cases tried after the decision. Marvin Bockting's conviction of sexual assault held, and the court successfully clarified the implications of the Crawford v. Washington decision in the findings of the Whorton v. Bockting on February 28, 2007.
Click here to learn more about Thomas Stagg of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg