united-states us-supreme-court precedent hypothetical
After US Supreme Court overturns precedent, are old cases revisited?
<p>Hypothetical scenario:  </p>

<ul>
<li>1950: government uses method A to convict John Doe of crime B, SCOTUS upholds conviction  </li>
<li>1990: government uses method A to convict Jake Smith of crime B  </li>
<li>2000: government uses method A to convict Jane Roe of crime B, SCOTUS overturns decision from 1950, vacates Roe's conviction  </li>
</ul>

<p>What would now happen to Smith's conviction, if anything?</p>

<p>The standard is <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/what-happens-to-old-sentences-when-the-law-changes/410455/" rel="noreferrer">this</a>, from <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/case.html" rel="noreferrer">Teague v. Lane</a>: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If a case announces a “new rule,” an opinion by Justice Sandra Day
  O’Connor said, the new rule will apply to all cases pending on direct
  review; but in most cases it will not apply to cases already final.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are two exceptions: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>First, a “new rule” will apply retroactively if it is “substantive,”
  meaning eliminating certain crimes (all sodomy cases, say, after
  Lawrence v. Texas) or protecting certain classes of people from
  certain punishments—as in the Court’s recent decisions that juvenile
  offenders and the intellectually disabled cannot be sentenced to
  death. The issue in Montgomery is whether the new rule against “true
  life” sentences for juvenile is that kind of “substantive” rule. The
  Miller Court said that states could no longer subject juvenile
  defendants to automatic sentences of life without parole; it didn’t
  say that a court could not sentence any juveniles to that penalty. Is
  that a “substantive” exclusion of juveniles—or a requirement of
  individualized sentencing that makes a mere “procedural” change to the
  law?</p>
  
  <p>The second exception to Teague is for a “watershed rule of criminal
  procedure,” meaning one that the Court finds to be an “absolute
  prerequisite” to a fair and accurate trial. This is a terrific
  exception except that, well, there seemingly aren’t any “watershed
  cases.”</p>
</blockquote>
