Go to:	Argument	Case Menu	Briefs Menu

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CASE

The defendant, Steven Oken, sexually assaulted and murdered Dawn Garvin. Oken v. State, 343 Md. 256, 264, 681 A.2d 30, 34 (1996). On November 1, 1987, Mrs. Garvin's father found her lying nude on her bed, with a bottle protruding from her vagina, with two contact gun shot wounds to the head. Id. at 265, 681 A.2d at 34. Less than two weeks later, Oken sexually assaulted and murdered his sister-in-law at his Maryland home. Ibid. Soon thereafter, he fled to Maine where he murdered a motel desk clerk. Ibid. For the killing of Mrs. Garvin, a jury convicted Oken of first-degree murder, first-degree sexual offense, burglary, and the use of a handgun in a crime of violence. Id. at 267, 681 A.2d at 35. That same jury sentenced him to death. Ibid.

On direct appeal, all convictions, except the burglary conviction, and the death sentence were affirmed. Oken v. State, 327 Md. 628, 680, 612 A.2d 258, 283 (1992). The state trial court denied postconviction relief, and this Court affirmed. 343 Md. at 264, 681 A.2d at 33-34. The federal courts also heard and rejected Oken's federal habeas claims. Oken v. Nuth, 64 F. Supp. 2d 488, 492 (D. Md. 1999), aff'd, Oken v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1165 (2001).

Despite this exhaustive, lengthy review through both the state and federal courts, the case is still not over and justice has still not been done. Instead, there have been years of litigation over additional motions. See Brief of Appellant 1-4. This litigation included this Court's rejection of substantially the same claim as the one at issue in this matter in Oken v. State, 367 Md. 191, 198, 786 A.2d 691, 694 (2001). The case is presently before this Court on appeal from the circuit court's denial of appellant's Motion to Correct Illegal/Irregular Sentence. Brief of Appellant 3-4.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The retroactivity of new federal constitutional rules in Maryland postconviction proceedings needs to be reexamined in light of the changes to federal case law in Teague v. Lane and its progeny. The pre-Teague Maryland cases under the Maryland Postconviction Procedure Act implicitly held that Maryland follows federal case law for the retroactivity of federal rules.

Following Teague would not only be consistent with precedent, it would also be good policy. Excessive retroactivity, needlessly overturning final convictions and sentences, exacts a high cost on society. In capital punishment that cost is paid in innocent lives, as the deterrent effect is diminished.

Neither Apprendi v. New Jersey nor Ring v. Arizona is retroactive on collateral review under the Teague standard, and almost every appellate court in the country to consider the question has so held. The second exception to Teague is limited to new rules essential to the fairness of the proceeding, and Ring itself says it isnot based on fairness.

Ring only applies to the circumstances which must be found to make the defendant eligible for the death penalty. In Maryland, as in most states, that is the finding that at least one aggravating circumstance is true. The final weighing step is a pure sentencing decision, not subject to Ring.

	Beginning of this file	Argument, Part I	Case Menu