Linkletter v. Walker
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Teague v. Lane then replaced Linkletter's collateral-review balancing with a general bar on retroactive application of new constitutional criminal-procedure rules subject to narrow exceptions. Before those changes, Robinson v. Neil excluded double-jeopardy rules from Linkletter's reach, and United States ex rel. Flemings v. Chafee criticized the doctrine as ad hoc. The other reviewed opinions applied Linkletter historically, reported the later Supreme Court treatments, used Linkletter-derived state-law tests, or directed nearby adverse language at other authorities.
2,897 later cases cite Linkletter v. Walker; 232 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Linkletter v. Walker?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled
-
The Supreme Court replaced Linkletter's case-by-case approach for cases pending on direct review with a rule that all new criminal-procedure rules apply retroactively to nonfinal cases.
Griffith v. Kentucky · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Twenty-one years ago, this Court adopted a three-pronged analysis for claims of retroactivity of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965). ... We therefore hold that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a “clear break” with the past.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Supreme Court held that Linkletter's retroactivity analysis does not govern double-jeopardy rules, which prevent a trial rather than regulate trial procedure.
Robinson v. Neil · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The prohibition against being placed in double jeopardy is likewise not readily susceptible of analysis under the Linkletter line of cases. Although the Court has not handed down a fully reasoned opinion on the retroactivity of Benton v. Maryland, it has indicated that it is retroactive without examination of the Linkletter criteria.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The district court criticized Linkletter's prospective-overruling doctrine as ad hoc and lacking predictable boundaries.
United States ex rel. Flemings v. Chafee · E.D.N.Y. · filed
Linkletter, itself, the first attempt to justify the doctrine in its full blown form, presaged its ad hoc nature when it declared the Supreme Court’s power to rule prospectively “where the exigencies of the situation require.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Linkletter v. Walker and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace