ÿWPCÆ  ¥k¤ie¤á Æ[<ÆÙªªÊ,€EÍVJæ8—Í%ma‭䒕LeBàö†¨Ök ùïΤ0…&òA”bÌu»D"Ì×ã-.íY›.„-bصâSÛÏoµÈštitDCOâk\ënÛ=Ô³ÀˆŸ‰üíÐIAUßPA¿™dí°·ð~W` ¶Yñ¶¸§u¬FØÉ…<~iZiF§ÿW²Œžs¾ã쎇ØнªÅ‘ ³´Bì»c¾é³D»°Ú<Úßa£6èùóºþ©5¤·U/Ï€’<€‡ ãŠ0¸yßs+sŒe4ëÍ9ïúþŽÄCÈñœ*ØË<ÙµJð](ÕÀ?¡Mö£¨‘ߨï ‚3®E1úÌ}yþgÏ>%~Å ØËËßÕJõRÕI%C/vM&jÊC5ÄKÀþ°Wy«j ;«Éó1Ô´çÀ€AZ?jäo¥‰ÇØa 0DÉS 7`e—UNüeJUN¯SýUNPížUN‹eÙE>lƒUNïl= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B© ˜HP LaserJet 4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(Ûñ$¡¡Ô€Šjf‹XXÔšÃ2‰ Ê Ë EÌ Í Î Ï eÐ UÑ Ò DÓ U¦‹-1yFiles3|xÓ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ #Ý ƒžf$ÝÔ€Š Ã‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€case€law€review€that€follows€borrows€extensively€from€a€thoughtful€lawÐ ° Ðreview€article€by€Professor€Wayne€Logan€(Logan,€ð ðððDemocratic€Despotism€andÏConstitutional€Constraint:€an€Empirical€Analysis€of€Ex€Post€Facto€Claims€in€StateÏCourts,ðð€12€Wm.€&€Mary€Bill€of€Rights€J.€439,€(Feb.€2004),€and€in€particular€from€Part€IÏof€the€article,€ð ðEx€Post€Facto€Clause€Origins€and€Case€Law,ðð€at€pp.€445„458.)¼^S Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ  OldeWm ha[dKringprocedur[alrelat[ingimpair[edBeazellDobberttherefor[eFurmanmock[ingFenwickfavours]uch&jurisprudentiallye]veryinflict[ingalter[edR]etroactiveIn Inw]henmak[inghttp://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed44.htmof £Ý ƒžf$ÝÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòApprendi€v.€New€Jerseyóó€(2000)€530€U.S.€466./Ÿ½p<‹:Bookman Old Style Regular(;(3žf$¤¤Ý ƒÛñ!ÝÔ€Š Ã‹XXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó IÝ ƒžf$ÝÔ€Š Ã‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€majority€in€òòApprendióó€was€the€same,€except€for€a€realignment€of€the€twoÐ ° ÐClinton€appointed€members€of€the€Court,€with€Justice€Ginsburg€joining€the€majority€andÏJustice€Breyer€dissenting. -Ý ƒžf$ÝÔ€Š Ã‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€was€not€easy€to€omit€footnotes€which€referenced€case€law€such€as€ð ðTheÐ ° Ðbanishment€of€Lord€Clarendon,€1669€(19€Ca.€2.€c.€Ô_Ô10.)ðð].Ô_Ô [Ý ƒžf$ÝÔ€Š Ã‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔObviously,€this€procedure€would€not€stand€up€to€Double€Jeopardy€analysis;€but€itÐ ° Ðmust€be€recalled€that€Bill€or€Rights€protections€had€not€been€applied€to€the€States€as€ofÏthe€latter€part€of€the€Nineteenth€Century.(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular [Ý ƒZ$ÝÔ€Š‹g‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔObviously,€this€procedure€would€not€stand€up€to€Double€Jeopardy€analysis;€but€itÐ ° Ðmust€be€recalled€that€Bill€or€Rights€protections€had€not€been€applied€to€the€States€as€of€theÏlatter€part€of€the€Nineteenth€Century.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular IÝ ƒZ$ÝÔ€Š‹g‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€majority€in€òòApprendióó€was€the€same,€except€for€a€realignment€of€the€twoÐ ° ÐClinton€appointed€members€of€the€Court,€with€Justice€Ginsburg€joining€the€majority€andÏJustice€Breyer€dissenting.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ãÝ ƒZ$ÝÔ€Š‹g‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔTheÔ_Ô€case€law€review€that€follows€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôborrows€extensively€Ô_Ôfrom€a€thoughtful€law€reviewÐ ° Ðarticle€by€Professor€Wayne€Logan€(Logan,€Ô_Ôð ðððDemocraticÔ_Ô€Despotism€and€ConstitutionalÏConstraint:€an€Empirical€Analysis€of€Ex€Post€Facto€Claims€in€State€Ô_ÔCourts,ððÔ_Ô€12€Wm.€&ÏMary€Bill€of€Rights€J.€439,€(Feb.€2004),€and€in€particular€from€Part€I€of€the€article,€ð ðExÏPost€Facto€Clause€Origins€and€Case€Ô_ÔLaw,ððÔ_Ô€at€pp.€445„458.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular [Ý ƒZ$ÝÔ€!Š‹g‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIronically,€Ô_ÔHamiltonððsÔ_Ô€brief€words€in€favor€of€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition€come€inÐ ° Ðthe€course€of€the€general€argument€in€Federalist€No.€84€that€a€Bill€of€Rights€was€bothÏð ðunnecessaryðð€and€ð ðdangerous.ðð€Ô4‚"Ý MÔÝ‚ ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://www.vote-smart.org/reference/fedlist/fed84.htmÔ6€ÔÝ‚ ÍO”ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ‘!ÂÔ€ ;Ý ƒžf$ÝÔ€Š Ã‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIronically,€Hamiltonððs€brief€words€in€favor€of€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition€comeÐ ° Ðin€the€course€of€the€general€argument€in€Federalist€No.€84€that€a€Bill€of€Rights€was€bothÏð ðunnecessaryðð€and€ð ðdangerous.ðð€Ô4‚ Ý æÔÝ‚ ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://www.vote-smart.org/reference/fedlist/fed84.htmÔ6`ÔÝ‚ ÍOtƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý l"¢Ô€http://www.vote-smart.org/reference/fedlist/fed84.htm(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regularhttp://www.vote-smart.org/reference/fedlist/fed84.htm dÝ ƒÛñ!ÝÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑH°ÑÑ8€4=ŠXdìdÈ8ÑñÑ ñÓ€ÓñÑ ñà@ææìàòòò òÔ‡Š>‹ ŠÞÔThe€Olde€and€Improved€Ex€Post€Facto€ClauseÔ#†ŠÞ‹ Š>Ä#Ôóóó óñÐ ñˆÐ ° ÐñÐ ññÑ ñÓ€•ÓñÑ ññÐ ñà@× × ìàby€William€M.€Robinson,€SDAP€Staff€AttorneyñÐ ñˆÌÌò òà@šš$ìàIntroductionó óˆÐ xÈ ÐÌÓ€Óà  àIn€the€arena€of€criminal€law,€the€Rehnquist€Supreme€Court€will€almost€certainly€beÏknown€for€continuing€the€Burger€Courtððs€erosion€of€the€constitutional€protectionsÏpainstakingly€established€the€predecessor€Warren€Court.€€Of€course,€it€will€also€beÏrecognized€for€the€stellar€exception€to€this€trend€in€the€area€of€jury€trial€rights€under€theÏòòApprendióó€doctrine.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€unusual€five€vote€majority€in€the€òòApprendióó€cases€signaled€aÐ xÈ  Ðpeculiar€coming€together€of€Justices€of€the€Courtððs€ð ðleft,ðð€who€bring€at€least€someÏsensitivity€to€the€rights€of€the€accused€and€downtrodden,€with€the€Courtððs€far€ð ðrightððÏconstitutional€fundamentalists,€whose€view€of€the€jury€trial€right€is€animated€by€theÏjurisprudence€of€original€intent€and€a€true€conservative€suspicion€of€the€expansiveÏpowers€of€government.Ìà  àBut€there€is€a€second€area€where€the€current€Courtððs€constitutional€jurisprudenceÏin€the€criminal€law€has€bucked€the€trend,€albeit€on€a€somewhat€smaller€scale,€and€withoutÏthe€presence€of€a€consistent€five€vote€majority.€€With€its€recent€opinions€in€òòCarmell€v.Ð xÈ ÐTexasóó€Ô‡ ŠÞ‹‹ŠÞÔ(2000)€529€U.S.€513Ô#†ŠÞ‹‹ ŠÞë#Ô€and€òòStogner€v.€Californiaóó€Ô‡ ŠÞ‹‹ŠÞÔ(2003)€539€U.S.€607Ô#†ŠÞ‹‹ ŠÞa#Ô,€the€Court€hasÐ øH  Ðreinvigorated€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition,€expansively€reading€this€pre„Bill€of€RightsÏlimit€on€governmental€power€in€a€manner€consistent€with€some€of€the€earliest€case€lawÏinterpreting€it,€thereby€bucking€a€century„long€trend€of€constrained€reading€by€the€Court.Ìà  àIn€this€modest€and€(unfortunately)€hastily€written€article,€I€want€to€examine€a€bit€ofÏthe€ancient€and€recent€history€of€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clauses,€and€provide€the€reader€withÏsome€ideas€about€meritorious€ex€post€facto€challenges€which€can€be€raised€in€your€ownÏwork€as€criminal€appellate€advocates.ÌÐ ø)H%0 ЇÌñÐ ñÓÌL€ÓÓ€ÌL¤ ÓñÐ ñA.€à  àò òHistorical€Background€ó óÐ 0€ Ðà  à1.à8 ` àò òThe€Clause€and€Why€it€is€There.ó óж` x` x Ðà  àThe€ex€post€facto€prohibition€has€the€most€venerable€pedigree€of€all€the€constituƒ¼tional€protections€involving€the€criminal€law.€€Nearly€all€other€rights€have€their€€source€inÏthe€Bill€of€Rights€ð!ð€a€document€enacted€subsequent€to€the€Constitution€as€a€way€ofÏpersuading€Jeffersonian€Republicans€to€support€ratification€of€the€Constitution€ð!ð€and€theÏFourteenth€Amendment€ð!ð€enacted€by€a€radical€Republican€majority€largely€to€secure€civilÏrights€to€freed€slaves€ð!ð€and€were€generally€not€recognized€as€applicable€to€the€states€untilÏthe€second€half€of€the€Twentieth€Century.€€Yet€the€original€Article€I€of€the€Constitu‚tionÏcontains€not€just€one,€but€two€Ex€Post€Facto€Clauses,€the€first€limiting€the€power€ofÏCongress,€and€the€second€limiting€the€powers€of€the€States.€€Ìà  àThe€focus€of€this€article€is€on€the€second€provision,€which€will€be€referred€toÏthroughout€as€ð ðthe€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause.ðð€€It€is€found€in€Article€I,€section€10,€clause€1,Ïwhich€contains€a€short€list€of€subjects€involving€the€private€rights€and€liberties€of€citizensÏon€which€the€States€are€precluded€from€legislating.€€ÌÓ€Óà8  àòòNo€State€shallóó€enter€into€any€Treaty,€Alliance,€or€Confederation;€grantÐ ¼   ÐLetters€of€Marque€and€Reprisal;€coin€Money;€emit€Bills€of€Credit;€makeÏany€Thing€but€gold€and€silver€Coin€a€Tender€in€Payment€of€Debts;€òòpass€anyóóÐ ¼ " ÐBill€of€Attainder,€òòex€post€facto€Lawóó,€or€Law€impairing€the€Obligation€ofÐ ¼ # ÐContracts,€or€grant€any€Title€of€Nobility.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€oÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€TÓ(U.S.€Const.,€Art.€I,€ðð€10,€cl.€1,€emphasis€added.)Ìà  àIt€should€be€kept€in€mind€that€this€provision€of€the€Constitution€was€something€ofÏan€anomaly.€€By€and€large,€the€purpose€of€the€new€Charter€was€to€create€a€federalÏgovernment€with€limited€powers,€and€to€retain€to€the€States€all€remaining€powers€ofÏsovereignty,€leaving€the€Legislatures€of€the€various€states€near„total€authority€overÏmatters€within€their€domain.€€For€a€good€sense€of€what€animated€the€ConstitutionalÏConvention€to€include€this€limiting€provision,€there€is€no€better€source€than€ð ðPublius,ððÏthe€nom€de€plume€of€the€authors€of€the€Federalist€Papers.€€James€Madison,€the€then„Ð ¼, (4 Ðyouthful€father€figure€of€the€Constitution,€had€the€following€to€say€in€Federalist€No.€44:ÌÓ€Óà8  àBills€of€attainder,€ex-post-facto€laws,€and€laws€impairing€the€obligation€ofÏcontracts,€are€contrary€to€the€first€principles€of€the€social€compact,€and€toÏevery€principle€of€sound€legislation.€The€two€former€are€expresslyÏprohibited€by€the€declarations€prefixed€to€some€of€the€State€constitutions,Ïand€all€of€them€are€prohibited€by€the€spirit€and€scope€of€these€fundamentalÏcharters.€Our€own€experience€has€taught€us,€nevertheless,€that€additionalÏfences€against€these€dangers€ought€not€to€be€omitted.€Very€properly,Ïtherefore,€have€the€convention€added€this€constitutional€bulwark€in€favor€ofÏpersonal€security€and€private€rights;€and€I€am€much€deceived€if€they€haveÏnot,€in€so€doing,€as€faithfully€consulted€the€genuine€sentiments€as€theÏundoubted€interests€of€their€constituents.€The€sober€people€of€America€areÏweary€of€the€fluctuating€policy€which€has€directed€the€public€councils.ÏThey€have€seen€with€regret€and€indignation€that€sudden€changes€andÏlegislative€interferences,€in€cases€affecting€personal€rights,€become€jobs€inÏthe€hands€of€enterprising€and€influential€speculators,€and€snares€to€theÏmore-industrious€and€less€informed€part€of€the€community.€They€have€seen,Ïtoo,€that€one€legislative€interference€is€but€the€first€link€of€a€long€chain€ofÏrepetitions,€every€subsequent€interference€being€naturally€produced€by€theÏeffects€of€the€preceding.€They€very€rightly€infer,€therefore,€that€someÏthorough€reform€is€wanting,€which€will€banish€speculations€on€publicÏmeasures,€inspire€a€general€prudence€and€industry,€and€give€a€regularÏcourse€to€the€business€of€society.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€„ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€ûÓFederalist€No.€44,€Ô4‚Ý þ ÔÝ‚ ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed44.htmofÔ67ÔÝ‚ ÍOKƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý " yÔ€€Ð ° Ðà  àA€review€of€this€typically€insightful€and€persuasive€comment€by€Madison€(asÏcontrasted€to€the€more€Machiavellian€Hamilton)€should€serve€as€a€reminder€that€theÏdouble„edged€nature€of€constitutional€protections€in€the€criminal€law€has€been€aroundÏsince€the€Founding.€€Provisions€such€as€the€more€familiar€Bill€of€Rights€and€the€lessÏfamiliar€Ex€Post€Facto€Clauses€are€not€only€about€the€protection€of€individual€rights,€andÏthe€obligation€to€give€fair€notice,€but€have,€as€their€primary€purpose,€the€limitation€of€theÏarbitrary€powers€of€government;€they€protect€not€only€the€accused€criminal,€but€everyÏcitizen€against€government€unreasonably€changing€the€rules€against€them€mid„stream.€Ìà  àJustice€Chaseððs€lead€opinion€in€òòCalder€v.€Bullóó€(1798)€3€U.S.€386,€the€first€andÐ 0*€%+ Ðforemost€Supreme€Court€decision€on€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition,€is€well€known€for€itsÏvery€specific€description€of€the€categories€of€ex€post€facto€laws,€a€subject€which€will€beÐ 0-€(/ Ðdiscussed€extensively€below.€€However,€the€same€opinion€merits€careful€review€for€itsÏexcellent€description€of€the€principles€of€republican€government€which€brought€intoÏexistence€the€need€for€this€safeguard,€and€for€its€enshrinement€in€the€Constitution.€ÏòòCalderóó€refers€to€a€ð ðfundamental€principleðð€which€ð ðflows€from€the€very€nature€of€our€freeÐ 0 € ÐRepublican€governments,€that€no€man€should€be€compelled€to€do€what€the€laws€does€notÏrequire;€nor€to€refrain€from€acts€which€the€laws€permit.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€389.)€Ð 0 €  ÐÓ€Óà8  àA€law€that€punished€a€citizen€for€an€innocent€action,€or,€in€other€words,€forÏan€act,€which,€when€done,€was€in€violation€of€no€existing€law€.€.€.€is€againstÏall€reason€and€justice.€.€.€.€€The€prohibition€against€[the€State€Legislatures]Ïmaking€any€ex€post€facto€laws€was€introduced€for€greater€caution,€and€veryÏprobably€arose€from€the€knowledge,€that€the€Parliament€of€Great€BritainÏclaimed€and€exercised€a€power€to€pass€such€laws.€.€.€.ðð€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ€f"Ó(òòIbidóó.)€€Justice€Chaseððs€opinion€describes€the€nature€of€these€acts,€noting€that€some€wereÐ ° Ðwith€respect€to€the€crime,€ÌÓ€Óà8  àby€declaring€acts€to€be€€treason,€which€were€not€treason,€when€committed;Ïat€other€times,€they€violated€the€rules€of€evidence€(to€supply€a€deficiency€ofÏlegal€proof)€by€admitting€one€witness,€when€the€existing€law€required€two;€.Ï.€.€or€other€testimony€which€the€courts€of€justice€would€not€admit;€at€otherÏtimes€they€inflicted€punishments,€where€the€party€was€not,€by€law,€liable€toÏany€punishment;€and€in€other€cases,€the€inflicted€greater€punishment€thanÏthe€law€annexed€to€the€offence.€.€.€.€€With€very€few€exceptions,€theÏadvocates€of€such€laws€were€stimulated€by€ambition,€or€personal€resentƒ¼ment,€and€vindictive€malice.€€To€prevent€such,€and€similar,€acts€of€violenceÏand€injustice,€I€believe€the€Federal€and€State€Legislatures,€were€prohibitedÏfrom€passing€any€bill€of€attainder;€or€any€ex€post€facto€law.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€%ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€{(Ó(òòIbidóó.,€fns.€omitted.)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0#€# Ðà  àTwo€centuries€later,€of€course,€state€legislators€ð ðstimulated€by€ambition,€orÏpersonal€resentment,€and€vindictive€maliceðð€continue€to€enact€harsh€laws€against€criminalÏdefendants€and€seek€to€apply€them€retroactively.€€Thus€we€must€be€vigilant€to€safeguardÏboth€the€accused€criminal,€and€the€general€population,€against€such€abuses€of€power.Ð 0)€$+ ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌL£*ÓÓ€Óà  à2.€à8 ` àò òThe€òòCalderóóCategories€and€the€Interpretation€of€theÐ üL ÐClauseÐ ` x` x ÐÓ€Ì*ÓÓ€€Óó óÌÓ€€}+Óà  àAnalysis€of€the€question€whether€a€challenged€law€is€subject€to€the€ex€post€factoÏprohibition€always€begins€with€a€recitation€of€the€categories€set€forth€by€Justice€Chase€inÏhis€òòCalderóó€opinion.€€Interestingly€enough,€the€list€of€categories€is€pure€dicta€in€òòCalderóó,Ð € Ð Ðsince€the€holding€in€the€case€was€that€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause€applied€only€to€criminalÏcases,€and€not€the€civil€law€probate€issue€at€stake€in€òòCalderóó.€€Yet€the€application€andÐ € Ð  Ðinterpretation€of€the€òòCalderóó€categories€has€become€a€principal€staple€of€ex€post€factoÐ P  Ðjurisprudence.ÌÓ€Óà8  àI€will€state€what€laws€I€consider€ex€post€facto€laws,€within€the€words€andÏthe€intent€of€the€prohibition.€1st.€Every€law€that€makes€an€action€doneÏbefore€the€passing€of€the€law,€and€which€was€innocent€when€done,Ïcriminal;€and€punishes€such€action.€2d.€Every€law€that€aggravates€a€crime,Ïor€makes€it€greater€than€it€was,€when€committed.€3d.€Every€law€thatÏchanges€the€punishment,€and€inflicts€a€greater€punishment,€than€the€lawÏannexed€to€the€crime,€when€committed.€4th.€Every€law€that€alters€the€legalÏrules€of€evidence,€and€receives€less,€or€different,€testimony,€than€the€lawÏrequired€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offence,€in€order€to€convictÏthe€offender.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€).ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€1Ó(òòCalderóó,€òòsupraóó,€3€U.S.€at€p.€390.)Ð €Ð Ðà  àThe€scope€of€each€of€the€òòCalderóó€categories,€with€the€possible€exception€of€theÐ P Ðfirst,€has€been€subject€to€extensive€and€heated€disputation€over€the€past€two€centuries,€asÏis€demonstrated€by€a€cursory€review€of€some€of€the€key€U.S.€Supreme€Court€cases€on€theÏsubject.ñÏ ñ׃ ×ñÏ ññÏ ñ׃×ñÏ ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €"Ð% Ðà  àThe€aftermath€of€the€Civil€War€gave€rise€to€the€next€major€ex€post€facto€decision,ÏòòCummings€v.€Missourióó€(1866)€71€U.S.€277.€€A€provision€of€the€post„Civil€War€MissouriÐ €%Ð ) ÐConstitution€contained€a€ð ðtest€oathðð€designed€to€ensure€Union€loyalty.€€Each€affiant€wasÐ 'P"+ Ðcompelled€to€deny€inter€alia€ð ðthat€he€ha[d]€ever€ððbeen€in€armed€hostility€to€the€UnitedÏStates,€or€to€the€lawful€authorities€thereof,ðððð€or€ð ðthat€he€ha[d]€ever,€ððby€act€or€word,ððÏmanifested€his€adherence€to€the€cause€of€the€enemies€of€the€United€States,€foreign€orÏdomestic.ðð€€The€Missouri€provision€further€provided€that€any€individual€who€refused€toÏtake€the€oath€would€be€barred€from€ð ðany€office€of€honor,€trust,€or€profit.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€316„Ð °  Ð317.)€€Cummings,€a€Roman€Catholic€priest,€was€convicted€of€teaching€and€preachingÏwithout€first€taking€the€oath€and€challenged€the€provision€on€ex€post€facto€grounds.€(òòIdóó.,Ð °  Ðat€pp.€281„282.)Ìà  àJustice€Field€writing€for€the€majority€held€that€the€loyalty€oath€violated€the€Ex€PostÏFacto€Clause,€on€the€basis€of€several€òòCalderóó€categories.€€The€oath€violated€the€prohibitionÐ 0€  Ðagainst€punishing€behaviors€not€punishable€at€the€time€of€commission;€enhanced€theÏpunishment€of€other€behaviors€already€made€criminal€at€the€time€of€their€commission;Ïand€subverted€the€ð ðpresumptions€of€innocence,ðð€and€thus€altered€rules€of€evidence.€(òòIdóó.,Ð ° Ðat€pp.€332,€327„328.)€€While€facially€targeting€professional€association,€the€oathÏnonetheless€raised€ex€post€facto€concern:ÌÓ€Óà8  àThe€Constitution€deals€with€substance,€not€shadows.€Its€inhibition€wasÏleveled€at€the€thing,€not€the€name.€It€intended€that€the€rights€of€the€citizenÏshould€be€secure€against€deprivation€for€past€conduct€by€legislativeÏenactment,€under€any€form,€however€disguised.€If€the€inhibition€can€beÏevaded€by€the€form€of€the€enactment,€its€insertion€in€the€fundamental€lawÏwas€a€vain€and€futile€proceeding.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€¿9ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€—;Ó(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€325.)Ð °!% Ðà  àIn€the€late€1800s,€the€Court€addressed€a€series€of€trial-related€changes€in€state€lawsÏwhich€prompted€ex€post€facto€challenges.€€In€the€first€such€case,€òòKring€v.€Missourióó€(1883)Ð °$ ) Ð107€U.S.€221,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€first-degree€murder,€ultimately€pled€guiltyÏto€second-degree€murder,€and€later€successfully€appealed€his€sentence.€€On€remand,€heÏwas€convicted€of€first-degree€murder€and€sentenced€to€death€on€the€basis€of€a€new€lawÏthat€for€the€first€time€allowed€defendants€to€be€tried€for€first-degree€murder€after€entry€ofÏany€plea€to€a€lesser€offense.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€222„224.)Ð 0,€'3 Ðà  àThe€Court€reversed€on€ex€post€facto€grounds.ñÏ ñ׃×ñÏ ññÏ ñ׃×ñÏ ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Two€òòCalderóó€categories€were€reliedÐ ° Ðupon€in€this€analysis.€€First,€the€Missouri€law€amounted€to€a€change€in€a€rule€of€evidenceÏin€that€ð ðwhat€was€conclusive€evidence€of€innocenceðð€of€first-degree€murder€ð!ð€actualÏconviction€of€a€lower€grade€of€homicide€ð!ð€was€nullified€by€the€new€law.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€228.)€Ð 0 € ÐSecond,€the€new€law€retroactively€altered€the€quantum€of€punishment€imposed€on€Kring,Ïallowing€him€to€be€sentenced€to€death€for€first€degree€when€he€could€not€have€been€onÏhis€original€second€degree€murder€conviction.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€231„232.)Ð °  Ðà  àThe€Court€explained€that€it€backed€a€ð ðliberal€constructionðð€of€the€Ex€Post€FactoÏClause,€ð ðin€manifest€accord€with€the€purpose€of€the€constitutional€convention€to€protectÏthe€individual€rights€of€life€and€liberty€against€hostile€retrospective€legislation.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.Ð 0€  Ð229.)€€To€this€end,€the€Court€took€on€the€assertion€that€the€law€was€ð ðprocedur[al]ðð€inÏnature€and€thus€outside€the€ambit€of€ex€post€facto€coverage,€a€common€bugaboo€andÏmisconception€about€the€limits€of€the€reach€of€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause€which€persists€toÏthis€day.€€The€Court€first€dismissed€the€notion€that€the€Clause€did€not€apply€to€proceduralÏchanges€since€that€would€include€alterations€in€the€rules€of€evidence,€one€of€the€òòCalderóóÐ ° Ðcategories.€€Procedure,€according€to€the€majority,€was€simply€too€broad€a€concept€forÏdrawing€a€line€limiting€application€of€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€231„232.)Ð °  ÐÓ€Óà8  àCan€the€law€with€regard€to€bail,€to€indictments,€to€grand€juries,€to€the€trialÏjury,€all€be€changed€to€the€disadvantage€of€the€prisoner€by€state€legislationÏafter€the€offence€was€committed,€and€such€legislation€not€be€held€to€be€exÏpost€facto€because€it€relates€to€procedure€.€.€.€?€€[ðð]€€And€can€any€substantialÏright€which€the€law€gave€the€defendant€at€the€time€to€which€his€guilt€relatesÏbe€taken€away€from€him€by€ex€post€facto€legislation,€because,€in€the€use€ofÏa€modern€phrase,€it€is€called€a€law€of€procedure?€We€think€it€cannot.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€EÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€æGÓ(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€232.)€€Quoting€from€a€previous€decision,€òòUnited€States€v.€Hallóó€(1809)€2€Wash.Ð °%!* ÐCC.€366,€the€Court€stated€broadly€that€any€retroactive€law€that€ð ðalters€the€situation€of€aÏparty€to€his€disadvantageðð€is€ex€post€facto.€(òòKringóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€235.)Ð °($. Ðà  àNotwithstanding€these€broadly€inclusive€passages,€òòKringóó€marked€the€beginning€ofÐ ° Ðthe€uncertainty€that€endures€to€this€day€over€the€place€of€ex€post€facto€protections€relativeÏto€legislative€changes€in€the€criminal€law€that€can€be€classified€as€ð ðproceduralðð€in€nature.€ÏOnly€one€year€after€deciding€òòKringóó,€the€Court€in€òòHopt€v.€Utahóó€(1884)€110€U.S.€574Ð 0 € Ðrejected€an€ex€post€facto€challenge€because,€in€the€Courtððs€view,€the€retroactive€legalÏchange€was€procedural€in€nature.€€Hopt€was€convicted€of€first-degree€murder,€and€hisÏconviction€was€reversed€on€appeal.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€575.)€€At€his€retrial,€the€prosecutionððs€caseÐ °  Ðincluded€the€testimony€of€a€convict€then€serving€time€for€murder,€as€permitted€by€a€recentÏchange€in€state€law,€and€Hopt€was€again€convicted€of€first-degree€murder.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€587.)€Ð °  ÐOn€appeal,€Hopt€challenged€the€testimony,€arguing€that,€on€the€date€of€the€offense,€UtahÏlaw€specified€that€felons€were€incompetent€to€testify€in€criminal€trials.€(òòIbidóó.)Ð ° Ðà  àThe€Court€held€that€application€of€the€new€law€did€not€violate€the€Clause€becauseÏlaws€relating€to€witness€competency€failed€to€come€within€the€ambit€of€the€òòCalderóóÐ ° Ðcategories.€€While€the€law€broadened€the€permissible€range€of€witnesses,€it€did€notÏchange€ð ðthe€quantity€or€degree€of€proof€necessary€to€establish€.€.€.€guilt,ðð€and€did€not€alterÏthe€requisite€elements€or€facts€necessary€for€guilt.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€589„590.)€€The€provision,Ð 0€ ÐJustice€Harlan€wrote€for€the€Court,€fell€within€the€category€ð ðrelat[ing]€to€modes€ofÏprocedure€only,€in€which€no€one€can€be€said€to€have€a€vested€right.€.€.€.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€590.)Ð 0€" Ðà  àThe€Courtððs€reasoning€in€òòHoptóó€signals€the€beginning€of€a€much€more€restrictiveÐ °$ Ðinterpretation€of€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause.€€One€could€argue€that€the€distinction€drawn€inÏòòHoptóó€was€at€odds€with€òòCalderóó,€since€prominent€among€the€examples€of€ex€post€factoÐ °"( Ðlaws€discussed€in€Justice€Chaseððs€opinion€was€the€retroactive€removal€of€the€secondÏwitness€requirement€in€treason€prosecutions€and€the€bars€against€unsworn€andÏinterspousal€testimony.€(òòCalderóó,€òòsupraóó,€3€U.S.€at€p.€389.)Ð 0'€". Ðà  àIn€a€pair€of€decisions€in€1898€involving€different€defendant€named€ð ðThompson,ððÏthe€Court€delineated€a€limited€set€of€circumstances€in€which€a€ð ðproceduralðð€change€couldÏviolate€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause.€The€defendant€in€òòThompson€v.€Missourióó€(1898)€171Ð °+'4 ÐU.S.€380€was€convicted€of€first-degree€murder€by€means€of€strychnine€poisoning.€€AtÐ 0-€(6 Ðtrial€the€court€admitted€into€evidence€handwritten€letters€of€Thompson€so€that€they€couldÏbe€compared€to€the€allegedly€forged€strychnine€prescription.€€When€the€crime€occurredÏsuch€exemplars€were€inadmissible,€but€the€Missouri€legislature€later€allowed€theirÏconsideration.€Thompson€challenged€the€admission€of€the€letters€on€ex€post€factoÏgrounds.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€380„382.)Ð °  Ðà  àThe€Court€rejected€the€claim,€reasoning€that€the€legal€change€was€procedural€inÏnature,€but€provided€some€important€elaboration.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€387„388.)€€Again€writing€forÐ °  Ðthe€Court,€Justice€Harlan€concluded€that€Thompson€failed€to€show€that€he€had€ð ðanyÏvested€right€in€the€rule€of€evidenceðð€applicable€at€the€time€of€his€offense,€or€that€the€newÏrule€ð ðentrenched€upon€any€of€the€essential€rights€belonging€to€one€put€on€trial€for€aÏpublic€offence.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€388.)€€A€criminal€defendant€ð ðis€not€entitled€of€right€to€be€triedÐ ° Ðin€the€exact€mode,€in€all€respects,€that€may€be€prescribed€.€.€.€at€the€time€of€theÏcommission€of€the€offence€.€.€.€so€far€as€mere€modes€of€procedure€are€concerned.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€atÐ ° Ðp.€386.)€€After€discussing€òòKringóó€and€òòHoptóó,€Justice€Harlan€added,€however,€that€aÐ 0€ Ðprocedural€change€could€violate€the€Clause€when€it€ð ðalters€the€situation€of€a€party€to€hisÏdisadvantage,ðð€insofar€as€it€affects€a€ð ðsubstantial€right.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€383.)Ð 0€ Ðà  àAn€example€of€such€a€procedural€change€was€provided€in€the€second€case,ÏòòThompson€v.€Utahóó€(1898)€179€U.S.€343.€€That€defendantððs€homicide€crime€wasÐ 0€" Ðcommitted€when€applicable€law€guaranteed€a€jury€of€twelve.€€However,€he€was€ultimatelyÏtried€and€convicted€by€a€jury€of€eight,€as€permitted€by€a€law€newly€enacted€when€UtahÏwas€admitted€to€the€Union.€€Justice€Harlan,€writing€yet€again€for€the€Court,€concludedÏthat€the€change€in€jury€composition€was€of€the€procedural€kind€condemned€in€Kring.€(òòIdóó.,Ð 0$€* Ðat€pp.€351„352.)€€This€procedural€change€violated€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause,€JusticeÏHarlan€reasoned,€because€it€ð ðmaterially€impair[ed]€the€right€of€the€accused€to€have€theÏquestion€of€his€guilt€determined€according€to€the€law€as€it€was€when€the€offence€wasÏcommitted.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€351.)€€At€the€same€time,€however,€Justice€Harlan€acknowledgedÐ 0*€%2 Ðthe€difficulty€of€applying€the€materiality€test:ÌÓ€Óà8  àThe€difficulty€is€not€so€much€as€to€the€soundness€of€the€general€rule€that€anÐ 0-€(6 Ðaccused€has€no€vested€right€in€particular€modes€of€procedure,€as€inÏdetermining€whether€particular€statutes€by€their€operation€take€from€anÏaccused€any€right€that€was€regarded,€at€the€time€of€the€adoption€of€theÏConstitution,€as€vital€for€the€protection€of€life€and€liberty,€and€which€he€Ïenjoyed€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offence€charged€against€him.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€4^ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€L`Ó(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€352.)Ð 0 € Ðà  àThe€uncertainty€about€ð ðproceduralðð€changes€continued€into€the€next€century.€€TheÏdefendants€in€òòBeazell€v.€Ohioóó€(1925)€269€U.S.€167€were€jointly€indicted€for€embezzleƒÐ 0 €  Ðment.€€At€the€time€of€their€offense,€Ohio€law€expressly€allowed€for€separate€trials,€but€byÏthe€time€of€trial,€the€law€had€changed€to€permit€separate€trials€only€ð ðfor€good€causeÏshown.ðð€€After€being€tried€jointly€and€convicted,€the€defendants€challenged€the€law€on€exÏpost€facto€grounds.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€168„169.)Ð 0€ Ðà  àThe€Court€rejected€the€claim,€and€in€so€doing,€put€forward€a€hitherto€novelÏformulation€of€the€òòCalderóó€categories.€€Eschewing€the€traditional€four€categories,€òòBeazellóóÐ 0€ ÐCourt€put€forward€a€three€part€test,€concluding€that€an€ex€post€facto€law€is€one€ð ðwhichÏpunishes€as€a€crime€an€act€previously€committed,€which€was€innocent€when€done;€whichÏmakes€more€burdensome€the€punishment€for€a€crime,€after€its€commission,€or€whichÏdeprives€one€charged€with€crime€of€any€defense€available€according€to€law€at€the€timeÏwhen€the€act€was€committed€.€.€.€.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€169.)€€This€reformulation€omitted€both€theÐ °  Ðsecond€and€fourth€òòCalderóó€categories,€laws€which€aggravate€a€crime,€and€laws€which€alterÐ 0€" Ðthe€rules€of€evidence,€and€specified€a€new€category,€concerning€any€ð ðdefenseððÏretroactively€withdrawn€by€law.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€169„170.)€Ð 0"€& Ðà  àApplying€these€criteria,€the€Court€concluded€that€the€change€in€Ohio€law€was€aÏprocedural€one,€affecting€only€the€conduct€of€the€trial,€which€did€not€deprive€theÏdefendant€ð ðof€any€defense€previously€available,€nor€affect€the€criminal€quality€of€the€actÏcharged€.€.€.[or€alter]€the€legal€definition€of€the€offense€or€the€punishment€to€be€metedÏout.ðð€€The€law€merely€ð ðrestored€a€mode€of€trial€deemed€appropriate€at€common€law,€withÏdiscretionary€power€in€the€court€to€direct€separate€trials.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€170„171.)€€While€theÐ 0+€&2 ÐCourt€acknowledged€that€some€types€of€procedural€changes€can€be€ex€post€facto€laws,€itÐ °,(4 Ðrefused€to€describe€any€recipe€for€discerning€such€claims:ÌÓ€Óà8  àJust€what€alterations€of€procedure€will€be€held€to€be€of€sufficient€momentÏto€transgress€the€constitutional€prohibition€cannot€be€embraced€within€aÏformula€or€stated€in€a€general€proposition.€The€distinction€is€one€of€degree.ÏBut€the€constitutional€provision€was€intended€to€secure€substantial€personalÏrights€against€arbitrary€and€oppressive€legislation,€and€not€to€limit€theÏlegislative€control€of€remedies€and€modes€of€procedure€which€do€not€affectÏmatters€of€substance.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€iiÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€kÓ(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€171,€citations€omitted.)Ð °  Ðà  àHalf€a€century€later€in€òòDobbert€v.€Floridaóó€(1977)€432€U.S.€282,€the€Court€againÐ 0€  Ðgrappled€with€the€substance/procedure€distinction.€€At€the€time€the€defendant€committedÏseveral€killings,€Florida€law€provided€that€a€capital€defendant€would€be€sentenced€toÏdeath€unless€a€majority€of€the€jury€recommended€life.€€After€the€murders,€however,€theÏstate€supreme€court€invalidated€the€law,€and€the€Florida€legislature€adopted€a€new€capitalÏsentencing€law.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€288.)€€The€new€regime€provided€for€a€separate€proceeding,€inÐ ° Ðlieu€of€the€prior€approach€that€consolidated€the€guilt-sentencing€phase,€and€furtherÏauthorized€the€trial€court€to€overrule€the€juryððs€refusal€to€impose€a€sentence€of€death.€(òòIdóó.,Ð ° Ðat€p.€289,€fn.€5.)€€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€death€under€the€amended€law,€after€the€juryÏvoted€ten-to-two€to€impose€life€and€the€trial€court€overruled€the€recommendation.€ÏContending€that€the€new€law€deprived€him€of€a€substantial€right€to€have€the€juryÏdetermine€whether€he€was€to€live€or€die,€defendant€challenged€the€law€on€ex€post€factoÏgrounds.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€287.)€€Ð 0!€$ Ðà  àThe€Court€concluded€that€the€law€was€procedural€in€nature€and€rejected€the€claim.ÏThe€amended€law€ð ðsimply€altered€the€methods€employed€in€determining€whether€theÏdeath€penalty€was€to€be€imposed;€there€was€no€change€in€the€quantum€of€punishmentÏattached€to€the€crime.ðð€€For€the€first€time,€the€òòDobbertóó€Court€essentially€concluded€thatÐ 0'€", Ðdesignation€of€a€law€as€procedural€in€nature€was€dispositive:€ð ðEven€though€it€may€workÏto€the€disadvantage€of€a€defendant,€a€procedural€change€is€not€ex€post€facto.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.Ð 0*€%0 Ð293„294.)€€Quoting€its€prior€language€in€òòHoptóó,€the€Court€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€crime€forÐ °+'2 Ðwhich€the€present€defendant€was€indicted,€the€punishment€prescribed€therefor[e],€and€theÐ 0-€(4 Ðquantity€or€degree€of€proof€necessary€to€establish€his€guilt,€all€remained€unaffected€by€theÏsubsequent€statute.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€294,€quoting€òòHoptóó,€òòsupraóó,€110€U.S.€at€pp.€589„590.)Ð 0€ Ðà  àMoreover,€the€Court€reasoned,€the€claim€failed€because€the€amended€Florida€lawÏdid€not€disadvantage€the€defendant.€This€was€because€it€ð ð[could€not]€be€said€withÏassuranceðð€that€even€under€the€old€sentencing€regime€the€jury€would€have€returned€a€lifeÏsentence.€(òòIbidóó.)€With€its€added€level€of€review€by€the€trial€court,€allowance€for€theÐ 0 €  Ðpresentation€of€mitigating€evidence€in€a€new€post-guilt€phase€and€assurance€of€appellateÏreview,€the€new€law€provided€defendant€ð ðwith€more,€rather€than€less,€judicialÏprotection.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€295.)Ð °  Ðà  àFinally,€the€òòDobbertóó€Court€rejected€the€defendantððs€claim€that€he€suffered€an€exÐ 0€  Ðpost€facto€violation€because€when€the€killings€occurred€no€ð ðvalidðð€capital€law€was€inÏeffect,€given€that€shortly€thereafter€the€Florida€Supreme€Court€struck€down€the€stateððsÏlaw€on€the€basis€of€òòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó.€€The€majority€characterized€the€argument€asÐ ° Ðð ðsophistic,ðð€ð ðhighly€technical,ðð€and€ð ðmock[ing]€the€substance€of€the€Ex€Post€FactoÏClause.ðð€€Regardless€of€the€constitutional€invalidity€of€the€law,€its€existence€in€theÏFlorida€statutes€ð ðserved€as€an€ððoperative€factðððð€that€provided€sufficient€warning€toÏpotential€killers€of€the€penalty€Florida€would€seek€upon€a€finding€of€culpability.€(òòIdóó.,€atÐ °  Ðpp.€297„298.)Ìà  àòòCollins€v.€Youngbloodóó€(1990)€497€U.S.€37€signaled€a€continuation€of€the€trend€ofÐ °$ Ðnarrow€construction€of€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause.€€The€defendant€in€òòCollins€óóreceived€bothÐ 0!€& Ða€prison€sentence€and€a€fine.€€However,€the€fine€was€not€authorized€by€law,€and€thisÏerroneous€punishment€entitled€defendant€to€a€new€trial€under€Texas€law.€€WhileÏdefendantððs€habeas€petition€was€pending,€the€Texas€legislature€passed€a€statute€expresslyÏallowing€appellate€courts€to€reform€improper€verdicts,€obviating€any€need€for€a€retrial.€ÏThe€Texas€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€modified€the€verdict€and€reinstated€the€defendantððsÏprison€term,€and€the€defendant€challenged€this€result€as€based€on€an€ex€post€facto€law.Ï(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€39„40.)Ð °+'4 Ðà  àIn€rejecting€the€claim,€the€Court€in€òòCollinsóó€looked€back€to€the€reformulatedÐ 0-€(6 Ðcategories€of€òòBeazellóó,€and€further€modified€the€òòCalderóó€categories.€€Chief€JusticeÐ ° ÐRehnquist,€who€authored€the€majority€opinion,€concluded€that€ð ð[t]he€òòBeazellóó€formulationÐ 0€ Ðis€faithful€to€our€best€knowledge€of€the€original€understanding€of€the€Ex€Post€FactoÏClause:€Legislatures€may€not€retroactively€alter€the€definition€of€crimes€or€increase€theÏpunishment€for€criminal€acts.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€43.)€€In€a€footnote,€the€Court€acknowledged€thatÐ °  ÐòòBeazellóó€had€modified€òòCalderóó,€in€particular€omitting€reference€to€changes€in€evidence€asÐ 0 €  Ðbeing€ex€post€facto,€but€concluded€that€this€modification€was€proper,€since€ð ðcasesÏsubsequent€to€òòCalderóó€make€clear,€this€language€was€not€intended€to€prohibit€theÐ 0€  Ðapplication€of€new€evidentiary€rules€in€trials€for€crimes€committed€before€the€changes.ððÏ(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€43,€fn.€3.)Ð 0€  Ðà  àApplying€this€test,€the€Court€found€no€ex€post€facto€violation,€reasoning€that€theÏnew€law€constituted€a€procedural€change€that€neither€altered€the€definition€of€defendantððsÏcrime€of€conviction,€nor€increased€the€punishment€associated€with€conviction.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.Ð ° Ð44.)€òòCollinsóó€reasserted€the€blanket€statement€in€òòDobbertóó€that€procedural€changes€do€notÐ 0€ Ðcreate€ex€post€facto€laws,€even€if€they€concern€substantial€rights.€€The€Courtððs€past€effortsÏto€distinguish€such€laws,€according€to€the€òòCollinsóómajority,€had€ð ðimported€confusionððÐ 0€ Ðinto€ex€post€facto€jurisprudence€leading€to€an€ð ðundefined€enlargementðð€of€the€reach€ofÏthe€Clause.€€Rather€than€assigning€significance€to€whether€a€law€is€procedural,€the€keyÏissue€is€whether€the€challenged€law€comes€within€the€òòCalderóó€categories,€as€newlyÐ °$ Ðcharacterized€by€the€Court.€€Concluding€that€its€prior€decisions€in€òòKring€v.€Missourióó€andÐ 0!€& ÐòòThompson€v.€Utahóó,€with€their€focus€on€ð ðsubstantial€protectionsðð€and€ð ðpersonal€rights,ððÐ °"( Ðstrayed€from€this€ð ðanalytical€frameworkðð€and€ð ðcaused€confusion,ðð€the€Court€overruledÏthe€decisions.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€45„47.)Ð °%!, ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLå†ÓB.à8  àò òòòCarmellóó€and€òòStogneróó.ó óÐ|'Ì"/Ð Ð  Ðà  àThe€framework€is€now€set€for€the€two€most€recent€Supreme€Court€decisions€on€theÏEx€Post€Facto€Clause,€òòCarmellóó€and€òòStogneróó.€€As€will€be€explained,€these€cases€signal€aÐ ‚*Ò%3 Ðstartling€return€by€a€shifting€majority€of€the€Court€to€the€ð ðfoundationalðð€construction€ofÏthe€Clause€by€Justice€Chase€in€òòCalderóó,€and€a€rejection€of€the€reformulation€of€theÐ ‚-Ò(7 Ðmeaning€of€an€ex€post€facto€law€by€the€Court€in€òòBeazellóó,€òòDobbertóó€and€òòCollinsóó.€€Ð ° ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLx‰Óà  à1.à8 ` àò òòòCarmellóóó óÐ|Ì` x` x Ðà  àThe€decision€in€òòCarmell€v.€Texasóó€(2000)€529€U.S.€513featured€the€stunningÐ ÿO Ðrevival€of€the€ð ðgiven„up„for„deadðð€Fourth€Category,€pertaining€to€ð ða€law€which€alters€theÏlegal€rules€of€evidence,€and€receives€less,€or€different,€testimony,€than€the€law€required€atÏthe€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offence,€in€order€to€convict€the€offender.ðð€(òòCalderóó,Ð  Ï  Ðòòsupraóó,€3€U.S.€at€p.€390.)€€òòCarmellóó,€like€òòApprendióó,€which€was€decided€the€same€year,Ð ÿ O  Ðinvolved€a€ð ðleft„rightðð€majority€of€five,€with€an€opinion€authored€by€Justice€StevensÏbeing€joined€by€Justices€Breyer,€Souter,€Scalia,€and€Thomas.ñÏ ñ׃×ñÏ ññÏ ñ׃×ñÏ ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ÿO  Ðà  àUnder€Texas€law,€conviction€in€a€rape€case€would€not€be€allowed€unless€theÏcomplaining€witnessðð€testimony€was€corroborated€by€other€evidence€or€the€victimÏinformed€another€person€of€the€offense€within€six€months,€and€provided€an€exception€forÏvictims€under€the€age€of€14,€whose€uncorroborated€testimony€was€sufficient€forÏconviction.€(òòCarmellóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€517„518.)€€In€1993,€Texas€amended€its€law€to€extendÐ Ï Ðthe€ð ðchild€victimðð€exception€to€victims€under€the€age€of€18.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€519.)€€Four€ofÐ ÿO ÐCarmellððs€convictions€were€based€on€acts€that€took€place€before€the€new€law€went€intoÏeffect€and€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€the€victim€when€she€was€between€the€age€ofÏ14€and€18.€(òòIbidóó.)€€Carmellððs€ex€post€facto€challenge€to€conviction€on€these€counts€wasÐ Ï# Ðrejected€by€a€Texas€appellate€court,€which€dutifully€followed€òòDobbertóó€and€òòCollinsóó€andÐ ÿO% Ðconcluded€that€the€new€law€was€a€mere€ð ðrule€of€procedureðð€which€simply€removedÏrestrictions€on€the€competency€of€certain€witnesses€without€increasing€the€punishment€forÏthe€crime€or€changing€the€elements€of€the€offense.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€520.)Ð $Ï+ Ðà  àJustice€Stevensððs€majority€opinion€retraced€the€sources€of€Justice€Chaseððs€fourÏcategories€of€ex€post€facto€laws€in€great€detail,€pointing€out€the€centrality€of€the€FourthÏCategory,€both€in€the€subsequent€cases€and€scholarly€interpretation.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€522„525,)€Ð ÿ(O$1 ÐIn€particular,€the€òòCarmellóó€court€looked€back€to€common€law€commentaries€based€onÐ ° ÐFenwickððs€Case,€a€classic€ex€post€facto€case€discussed€by€the€Court€in€òòCalderóó,€in€whichÐ 0€ ÐParliament€had€retroactively€reduced€the€number€of€witnesses€required€to€prove€treasonÏfrom€two€to€one.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€526„530.)€€Ð 0 € Ðà  àHaving€established€the€pedigree€of€the€Fourth€Category,€the€opinion€in€òòCarmellóóÐ °  Ðhad€no€problem€concluding€that€the€new€Texas€law€was€one€which€ð ðalters€the€legal€rulesÏof€evidence,€and€receives€less,€or€different,€testimony,€than€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€ofÏthe€commission€of€the€offense,€in€order€to€convict€the€offender.ðð€€The€prosecutionððs€case,Ïunder€the€prior€law,€was€legally€insufficient€without€corroboration,€and€the€new€lawÏallowed€conviction€on€ð ðless€testimony€.€.€.ðð,€paralleling€the€circumstances€of€FenwickððsÏcase.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€530.)€Ð ° Ðà  àJustice€Stevensððs€opinion€took€considerable€pains€to€emphasize€that€the€revivedÏFourth€Category€ð ðresonates€harmoniously€with€one€of€the€principal€interests€that€the€òòExÐ ° ÐPost€Factoóó€Clause€was€designed€to€serve,€fundamental€justice€.€.€.ðð,€noting€that€this€basicÐ 0€ Ðconcern€of€the€Clause€is€more€central€than€the€requirement€of€fair€warning€to€criminals,Ïcommenting€cryptically€that€ð ðthere€are€few,€if€any,€reliance€interests€in€planning€futureÏcriminal€activities€based€on€the€expectation€of€less€severe€repercussions.ðð€(òòCarmellóó,Ð °  Ðòòsupraóó,€at€p.€531,€&€fn.€21.)€€€òòCarmellóó,€looking€back€to€òòCalderóó,€reminds€us€that€ex€postÐ 0€" Ðfacto€laws€have€long€been€considered€ð ðcruel€and€unjust.ðð€€The€constitutional€protectionÏagainst€them€stands€as€a€ð ðbulwark€in€favour€of€the€personal€security€of€the€subject€.€.€.ððÏand€a€protection€ð ðagainst€the€favorite€and€most€formidable€instruments€of€tyranny.ðð€(òòIdóó.,Ð °"( Ðat€p.€532,€quoting€òòCalderóó,€3€U.S.€at€p.€390„391and€The€Federalist,€No.€84.)ñÏ ñ׃×ñÏ ññÏ ñ׃×ñÏ ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€FourthÐ 0$€* ÐòòCalderóó€category€ð ðaddresses€this€concern€preciselyðð€because€it€is€ð ðgrossly€unfairðð€toÐ °%!, Ðreduce€the€quantum€of€evidence€required€to€convict€a€defendant€after€the€fact.€€In€thisÏsituation,€like€that€of€other€types€of€ex€post€facto€laws,€ð ðthe€government€refuses,€after€theÐ °($0 Ðfact,€to€play€by€its€own€rules,€altering€them€in€a€way€that€is€advantageous€only€to€theÏState,€to€facilitate€an€easier€conviction.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€532„533.)Ð 0€ Ðà  àòòóóÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔThe€òòCarmellóó€majority€expressly€rejected€a€request€by€the€federal€government,€asÐ ° Ðòòamicusóó,€to€abandon€the€Fourth€Category,€as€well€as€the€claim€by€Texas€and€the€UnitedÐ 0 € ÐStates€that€the€Court€had€already€abandoned€the€fourth€category€in€òòCollinsóó.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.Ð °  Ð534„539.)€The€Court€in€òòCarmellóó€also€rejected€Texasððs€contention€that€the€FourthÐ 0 €  ÐCategory€had€to€be€limited€to€laws€which€reduce€burden€of€proof.€€After€acknowledgingÏthat€òòCummings€v.€Missourióó,€the€Courtððs€prior€leading€case€on€the€Fourth€Category,€didÐ 0€  Ðinvolve€such€a€reduction,€the€Court€found€ð ðno€good€reason€to€draw€a€line€between€lawsÏthat€lower€the€burden€of€proof€and€laws€that€reduce€the€quantum€of€evidence€necessary€toÏmeet€that€burden€.€.€.ðð€finding€such€laws€to€be€ð ðindistinguishable€in€all€meaningful€waysÏrelevant€to€the€concerns€of€the€òòEx€Post€Facto€Clauseóó.ðð€(òòCarmellóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€pp.€540„541,Ð 0€ Ðquoting€òòCummingsóó,€òòsupraóó,€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãhž#Ô71€U.S.€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔat€p.€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãò¢#Ô325:€ð ðThe€legal€result€must€be€the€same,€forÐ ° Ðwhat€cannot€be€done€directly€cannot€be€done€indirectly.€The€Constitution€deals€withÏsubstance,€not€shadows.ðð)Ìà  àFinally,€the€Court€rejected€the€claim€by€Texas€that€the€new€law€was€a€witnessÏcompetency€rule,€which€under€òòHoptóó€did€not€violate€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause.€€PointingÐ °  Ðout€that€a€victim€in€a€rape€case€was€always€competent€to€testify,€the€Court€characterizedÏthe€new€law€as€a€ð ðsufficiency€of€evidence€rule€.€.€.ðð€because€it€lessened€the€ð ðamount€orÏdegree€of€proofðð€needed€to€convict€the€defendant.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€544„545.)€€New€laws€whichÐ 0!€& Ðreduce€the€ð ðquantum€of€evidence€required€to€convictðð€cannot€be€compared€to€witnessÏcompetency€rules€or€other€changes€in€the€rules€of€evidence,€which€apply€even„handedlyÏto€both€parties€in€a€criminal€case,€in€that€ð ð[s]uch€rules€will€òòalwaysóó€run€in€theÐ °%!, Ðprosecutionððs€favor,€because€they€always€make€it€easier€to€convict€the€accused.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.Ð 0'€". Ð546.)Ìà  àThus€the€holding€in€òòCarmellóó€signaled€a€two„way€return€to€the€earlier€jurisprudenceÐ 0*€%2 Ðof€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause,€restoring€the€òòCalderóó€Fourth€Category€to€its€rightful€place,Ð °+'4 Ðand€eliminating€the€rigid€ð ðproceduralðð€exception€grafted€onto€the€Clause€by€the€Court€inÐ 0-€(6 ÐòòDobbertóóand€òòCollinsóó.Ð ° ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÓà  à2.à8 ` àò òòòStogneróóÐ|Ì` x` x Ðà  àó óThe€Courtððs€most€recent€word€on€the€Good€Olde€Clause€came€in€òòStogner€v.Ð ÿO ÐCaliforniaóó€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ(2003)€539€U.S.€607Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã ª#Ô.€€If€òòCarmellóó€signaled€a€revival€of€the€Fourth€Category,Ð  Ï ÐòòStogneróó€involved€a€jurisprudentially€novel€issue€concerning€the€Second€Category€ð!ð€i.e.,Ð ÿ O  Ðð ð[e]very€law€that€aggravates€a€crime,€or€makes€it€greater€than€it€was,€when€committed€.€.Ï.ðð€ð!ð€€€€which,€like€the€Fourth€Category,€had€been€eliminated€by€the€reformulation€of€theÏtest€in€òòBeazellóó€and€òòCollinsóó.€Ð Ï  Ðà  àòòStogneróó,€as€we€all€recall,€concerned€a€change€in€the€statute€of€limitations€forÐ ÿO  Ðcertain€sex€crimes€which,€under€Penal€Code€section€803(g),€permitted€charges€to€beÏbrought€in€cases€where€the€limitations€statute€had€expired€if€the€prosecution€followedÏwithin€one€year€of€a€complaint€made€to€the€police.€€The€limitations€period€on€StognerððsÏcrimes,€committed€between€1òòóó955€and€1973,€had€long€since€expired,€yet€he€wasÐ ÿO Ðprosecuted€under€the€new€limitations€revival€law€enacted€several€decades€later.€(òòIdóó.,€atÐ Ï Ðpp.€609„610.)€€The€California€Supreme€Court€had€rejected€an€ex€post€facto€challenge€toÏthe€same€law€in€òòPeople€v.€Frazeróó€(1999)€21€Cal.4th€737,€holding€that€revivals€ofÐ Ï Ðlimitations€statutes€are€not€ex€post€facto€laws€because€they€ð ðdo€not€implicate€the€mannerÏin€which€criminal€conduct€is€defined€and€punished€at€the€time€it€occurs€ð!ð€the€sole€concernÏof€the€ex€post€facto€clause.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€763.)Ð ÿO% Ðà  àJustice€Breyer€wrote€the€majority€opinion€in€òòStogneróó,€with€the€Court€dividingÐ !Ï' Ðalong€the€more€common€ð ðLeft/Rightðð€split,€with€Justice€OððConnor€providing€the€decisiveÏfifth€vote.€€The€majority€concluded€that€laws€which€revive€extinguished€limitationsÏstatutes€violate€the€second€òòCalderóó€category€in€three€distinct€senses.€€First,€by€retroactivelyÐ ÿ%O!- Ðpermitting€prosecutions€which€would€otherwise€have€been€forbidden,€ÌÓ€Óà8  àthe€new€statute€threatens€the€kinds€of€harm€that€.€.€.€the€Ex€Post€FactoÏClause€seeks€to€avoid.€Long€ago€the€Court€pointed€out€that€the€ClauseÏprotects€liberty€by€preventing€governments€from€enacting€statutes€withÏð ðmanifestly€unjust€and€oppressiveðð€retroactive€effects.€Calder€v.€Bull,€3ÏDall.€386,€391,€1€L.€Ed.€648€(1798).€Judge€Learned€Hand€later€wrote€thatÐ ÿ,O(5 Ðextending€a€limitations€period€after€the€State€has€assured€ð ða€man€that€he€hasÏbecome€safe€from€its€pursuit€.€.€.€seems€to€most€of€us€unfair€and€dishonest.ððÏòòFalter€v.€United€Statesóó,€23€F.2d€420,€426€(1928).аРР ÐÓ€&²ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€Õ´Ó(òòStogneróó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€611.)Ð 0€ Ðà  àJustice€Breyerððs€opinion€indicated€that€there€were€ð ðnoticeðð€concerns€implicated,€inÏthat€the€new€law€ð ðdeprived€the€defendant€of€the€ððfair€warning,ðð€that€might€have€led€himÏto€preserve€exculpatory€evidence.ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)€€At€the€same€time€it€emphasized€theÐ °   Ðð ðfundamental€libertyðð€aspect€of€the€claim€in€òòStogneróó,€commenting€that€a€Constitution€thatÐ 0€  Ðpermits€such€an€extension,€by€allowing€legislatures€to€pick€and€choose€when€to€actÏretroactively,€risks€both€ð ðarbitrary€and€potentially€vindictive€legislation,ðð€and€ð ðerosion€ofÏthe€separation€of€powers.ðð€(òòIbidóó.,€quoting€òòÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔÔ‡ ˆ ˆ‹ Š ÃÔWeaver€v.€Grahamóó€(1981)Ô#†ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆÝ·#ÔÔ#†Š Ã‹ ˆˆü·#ÔÔ‡ˆ ˆ‹Š ÃÔÔ‡ ˆ ˆ ˆˆÔ€450€U.S.€24,€Ô#†ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆš¸#ÔÔ#†Š Ã‹ ˆˆ{¸#Ô29,€andÐ ° Ðfn.€10.Ìà  àThe€majority€in€òòStogneróó€also€found€that€section€803(g)€fell€within€the€secondÐ ° ÐòòCalderóó€category€by€invoking€Justice€Chaseððs€ð ðalternative€descriptionðð€of€this€category,Ð 0€ Ðwhere€he€described€one€type€of€ex€post€facto€law€as€ð ðinflict[ing]€punishments,€where€theÏparty€was€not,€by€law,€liable€to€any€punishment.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€614,€quoting€òòCalderóó,€òòsupraóó,€3Ð 0€ ÐU.S.€at€p.€389.)€€Under€this€formulation,€the€new€law€ð ðaggravatedðð€Stognerððs€crimeÏbecause€at€the€time€of€the€amendment.€Stogner€was€not€ð ðliable€to€any€punishment.ðð€ÏThus,€under€òòStogneróó,€the€second€category,€which€at€first€blush€seems€to€be€duplicative€ofÐ °" Ðthe€first€category€(making€noncriminal€conduct€criminal)€and€the€third€categoryÏ(increasing€the€punishment),€actually€sets€forth€a€different€restriction€against€laws€whichÏinflict€punishment€upon€a€person€who€was€not,€at€the€time€the€new€law€was€passed,Ïsubject€to€such€a€punishment.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p€613„614.)€€Ð °$ * Ðà  àThird,€the€Court€in€òòStogneróó€found€it€significant€that€the€Congress,€lower€courts,Ð 0&€!, Ðand€commentators€had€all€but€universally€accepted€the€proposition€that€the€Ex€Post€FactoÏClauses€barred€laws€which€revived€time„barred€prosecutions,€noting€that€the€CaliforniaÏSupreme€Courtððs€contrary€position€in€òòFrazeróó€stood€alone€in€its€rejection€of€this€principle.Ð °*&2 Ð(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€616„618.)Ð 0,€'4 Ðà  àFinally,€Justice€Breyer€took€on€the€dissentððs€contention€that€there€was€noÏconstitutional€ð ðunfairnessðð€in€a€limitations€revival€law,€questioning€ð ðwhether€it€isÏwarranted€to€presume€that€criminals€keep€calendars€.€.€.ðð,€and€suggesting€that€the€hurt€toÏvictims€should€ð ðcount€the€higherðð€as€against€the€criminalððs€ð ðfictional€reliance.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.Ð 0 € Ð650„652,€dis.€opin.€of€Kennedy,€J.)€€The€majority€responded€that€the€law€wasÏconstitutionally€unfair€in€that€it€violated€ð ðsignificant€reliance€interestsðð€and€ran€counter€toÏa€ð ðpredominating€constitutional€interestðð€in€government€fairness€because€it€ð ðretroactivelyÏwithdraws€a€complete€defense€to€prosecution€after€it€has€already€attached,€and€it€does€soÏin€a€manner€that€allows€the€State€to€withdraw€this€defense€at€will€and€with€respect€toÏindividuals€already€identified.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€632.)Ð 0€  ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLþÂÓÓ€ÓC.à8  àò òEx€Post€Facto€Increases€of€Punishment€in€the€Arena€of€Prison€andÐ üL ÐParole€Law.ó óà ¸ àÐPÐ Ð  ÐÓ€'ÃÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€îÃÓà  àStarting€in€1981,€the€Court€issued€several€decisions€regarding€the€third€òòCalderóóÐ €Ð Ðcategory,€increases€in€punishment,€all€of€which€concerned€retroactive€modifications€toÏthe€ability€of€prisoners€to€win€early€release.€€In€òòÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔÔ‡ ˆ ˆ‹ Š ÃÔWeaver€v.€Grahamóó€(1981)Ô#†ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆÅ#ÔÔ#†Š Ã‹ ˆˆ9Å#ÔÔ‡ˆ ˆ‹Š ÃÔÔ‡ ˆ ˆ ˆˆÔ€450€U.S.€24,Ð €Ð Ðthe€High€Court€invalidated€a€Florida€Ô#†ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ×Å#Ôstatute€which€repealed€previous€law€by€reducingÐ P Ðamount€of€ð ðgain€timeðð€for€good€conduct€that€can€be€deducted€from€a€prisonerððs€sentence,Ïfinding€it€violated€Ex€Post€Facto€prohibition€because€it€ð ðmakes€more€onerous€theÏpunishment€for€crimes€committed€before€its€enactment.ðð€òòIdóó.,€at€p.€36.€Ô#†Š Ã‹ ˆˆ¸Å#ÔÐ €Ð$ Ðà  àThe€Court€found€no€ex€post€facto€violation€in€òòCalifornia€Department€ofÐ !P& ÐCorrections€v.€Moralesóó€(1995)€514€U.S.€499.€€The€new€law€at€issue€in€òòMoralesóó€modifiedÐ €"Ð( Ðthe€intervals€at€which€certain€prisoners€could€be€considered€for€parole€release€ð!ð€from€anÏannual€basis€to€up€to€three€years.€€Morales€claimed€that€the€retroactive€change€in€theÏrequired€frequency€of€opportunities€for€parole€violated€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause.€(òòIdóó.,€atÐ 'P". Ðpp.€503„504.)€€The€Court€disagreed,€contrasting€the€legal€change€to€those€in€priorÏsuccessful€claims,€where€the€challenged€law€had€the€ð ðeffect€of€enhancing€the€range€ofÏavailable€prison€terms.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€507.)€€The€new€law€merely€ð ðððalter[ed]€the€method€to€beÐ €+Ð&4 Ðfollowedðð€in€fixing€a€parole€release€date€under€identical€substantive€standards.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.Ð -P(6 Ð508,€quoting€òòMiller€v.€Floridaóó€(1987)€482€U.S.€423,€433.)€€Moreover,€the€decreasedÐ ° Ðnumber€of€required€parole€hearings€created€ð ðonly€the€most€speculative€and€attenuatedÏpossibility€.€.€.€of€increasing€the€measure€of€punishment€for€covered€crimes,€and€suchÏconjectural€effectsðð€did€not€warrant€ex€post€facto€protection.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€509.)€€For€theÐ 0 € ÐClause€to€apply,€the€petitioner€must€show€ð ða€sufficient€risk€of€increasing€the€measure€ofÏpunishment€attached€to€the€covered€crimes.ðð€(òòIbidóó.)€€Extending€ex€post€facto€coverage€toÐ 0 €  Ðlaws€having€only€conceivable€effects€on€€punishment€would,€in€the€Courtððs€words,Ïrequire€the€judiciary€to€be€charged€ð ðwith€the€micromanagement€of€an€endless€array€ofÏlegislative€adjustments€of€parole€and€sentencing€procedures.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€508.)Ð °  Ðà  àòòLynce€v.€Mathisóó€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ(1997)Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã0Ï#ÔÔ‡ˆ ˆ‹Š ÃÔÔ‡ ˆ ˆ ˆˆÔ€519€U.S.€433Ô#†ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ—Ï#ÔÔ#†Š Ã‹ ˆˆxÏ#Ô€concerned€a€Florida€law€permitting€theÐ 0€  Ðretroactive€cancellation€of€early€release€credits€earned€by€prisoners,€which€were€awardedÏwhen€the€volume€of€prisoners€in€the€corrections€system€exceeded€predetermined€levels.ÏLynce€benefitted€from€the€credits€and€was€released,€only€to€be€rearrested€when€a€new€lawÏrescinded€the€prior€largesse€for€certain€classes€of€inmates€(including€Lynce).€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.Ð 0€ Ð435„436.)€€In€addressing€Lynceððs€ensuing€ex€post€facto€challenge,€the€Court€looked€to€theÏð ðobjectiveðð€effects€of€the€legal€change€ð!ð€whether€the€retroactive€cancellation€of€sentenceÏcredit€served€to€lengthen€his€period€of€incarceration.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€443.)€€The€Court€had€noÐ °  Ðdifficulty€finding€the€test€satisfied,€given€that€Lynce€was€rearrested€after€having€beenÏreleased.€€Unlike€the€mere€lost€ð ðopportunityðð€and€ð ðmerely€speculativeðð€lengthening€ofÏimprisonment€contested€in€Morales,€Lynce€experienced€greater€punishment€and,Ïtherefore,€had€a€meritorious€claim.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€446„447.)€€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔÔ‡ ˆ ˆ‹ Š ÃÔð ð[R]etroactive€alteration€ofÐ °"( Ðparole€or€early€release€provisions,€like€the€retroactive€application€of€provisions€thatÏgovern€initial€sentencing,€implicates€the€òòEx€Post€Factoóó€Clause€because€such€credits€areÐ °%!, Ðððone€determinant€of€petitionerððs€prison€term€.€.€.€and€[the€petitionerððs]€effective€sentence€isÏaltered€once€this€determinant€is€changed.ðððð€(òòIdÔ#†ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆDÔ#ÔÔ‡ ˆ ˆ ˆˆÔóó.,€at€p.€445,€quoting€òòWeaveróó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.Ð °($0 Ð32.)Ô#†ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆDÖ#ÔÔ#†Š Ã‹ ˆˆcÔ#ÔÐ 0*€%2 Ðà  àòòWeaveróó€and€òòLynceóó€stand€for€the€proposition€that€retroactive€changes€which€restrictÐ °+'4 Ðthe€way€postconviction€credits€can€be€earned€are€violative€of€the€ex€post€factoÐ 0-€(6 Ðprohibition.€€This€is€so€even€when,€as€in€òòWeaveróó,€the€in„prison€behavior€which€canÐ ° Ðtrigger€the€greater€credit€reductions€occurs€after€the€operative€date€of€the€new€law,€soÏlong€as€the€conviction€on€which€punishment€was€imposed,€and€credits€are€beingÏrestricted,€occurred€before.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÓD.à8  àò òAreas€of€Recent€Contestation€and€Suggestions€of€Possible€Issuesó óÐü L Ð Ð  Ðà  àòòStogneróóprovides€a€fine€example€of€why€we€should€not€be€daunted€whenÐ ‚ Ò  Ðunenlightened€California€appellate€courts€reject€facially€meritorious€ex€post€facto€claims.€ÏWhat€follows€is€an€outline€of€some€recent€ex€post€facto€challenges€which€have€been€putÏforward€in€California€criminal€appeals,€with€some€suggestions€about€areas€whereÏadditional€challenges€may€be€made.€€òòóóÐ ‚Ò  ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÓà  à1.à8 ` àò òEx€Post€Facto€Credits€Issues.ó óÐNž` x` x Ðà  àThose€of€you€who€attend€these€seminars€and€read€the€materials€may€recall€that€IÏraised€this€issue€in€a€prior€seminar€article€about€credits.€€I€will€recycle€this€sameÏargument,€as€it€is€entirely€apposite€here.ÌÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔà  àÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š ÃÇÜ#ÔRetroactive€changes€in€credits€laws€can€affect€your€clientððs€ð ðeffective€sentenceðð€inÐ T¤ Ðsome€less„than€obvious€ways.€€With€the€extension€and€revival€of€limitation€statutes€in€sexÏcrime€cases€(and€with€non„limited€crimes€such€as€murder),€it€sometimes€occurs€that€yourÏclient€is€sentenced€in€a€current€case€for€crimes€committed€prior€to€the€enactment€ofÏparticular€credit€restriction€statutes.€€For€example,€a€client€may€stand€convicted€for€eightÏð ðviolent€felonyðð€sex€crimes€committed€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€credit€restrictionsÏof€section€2933.1.€€Or,€a€murder€defendant€may€incur€a€conviction€for€a€crime€committedÏprior€to€enactment€of€section€2933.2.€€Or,€in€a€somewhat€more€subtle€application€of€theÏprinciple,€your€client€may€stand€convicted€of€a€crime,€such€as€robbery,€which€wasÏreclassified€as€a€ð ðviolent€felonyðð€after€Proposition€21,€but€which€was€not€a€violent€felonyÏwhen€he€committed€his€current€robbery€back€in€January€of€2000.€€Application€of€theseÏlaws€against€your€client€retroactively€is€a€clear€violation€of€ex€post€facto€prohibition,Ïbecause€they€unquestionably€increase€his€ð ðeffective€sentenceðð€by€requiring€him€to€serve€aÐ T,¤'6 Ðmuch€longer€sentence€on€good€behavior.€(òòWeaver€v.€Grahamóó,€òòsupraóó,€450€U.S.€at€p.€32.)€Ð ° ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLLâÓà  àà ` àa.à ¸ àò òSection€2933.1€Ex€Post€Facto€Issuesó ó.Ð |Ì Ðà  àIf,€as€in€the€first€foregoing€example,€òòallóó€your€clientððs€crimes€were€committed€priorÐ R Ðto€the€effective€date€of€section€2933.1,€the€ex€post€facto€issue€is€a€no„brainer,€and€we€win.€ÏThe€problem€arises€(1)€where€some,€but€not€all€crimes€are€committed€prior€to€theÏeffective€date€of€the€new€law,€and€(2)€where€an€accusatory€pleading€under€which€yourÏclient€is€charged€and€convicted€specifies€a€range€of€dates€which€òòstraddlesóó€the€effectiveÐ R  Ðdate€of€section€2933.1,€e.g.,€where€a€crime€was€allegedly€committed,€ð ðon€or€betweenÏJanuary€1,€1994€and€December€31,€1995.ððÌà  àIn€the€former€case,€the€answer€seems€obvious.€€If€there€are€two€violent€felonyÏconvictions,€one€committed€after€the€effective€date€of€section€2933.1,€and€the€otherÏbefore,€the€15€percent€behavior€credit€limitations€should€apply€only€as€to€the€post„¼enactment€crime,€and€not€to€the€pre„enactment€offense.€€For,€as€òòWeaveróó€makes€clear,€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔinÐ R Ðex€post€facto€analysis€ð ðthe€critical€question€is€whether€the€law€changes€the€legalÏconsequence€of€acts€completed€before€its€effective€date.ðð€(òòWeaveróó,€òòsupraóó,€450€U.S.€at€p.Ð R Ð31.)€ð ðThrough€[the€ex€post€facto]€prohibition€the€Framers€sought€to€assure€that€legislat‚iveÏacts€give€fair€warning€of€their€effects€and€permit€individuals€to€rely€on€their€meaningÏuntil€explicitly€changed.€.€.€.ðð€(450€U.S.€at€pp.€28„29.)Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã±æ#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ€€As€to€the€crime€committed€beforeÐ ‚Ò# Ðsection€2933.1ððs€enactment,€a€defendant€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š ÃÐè#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔcould€have€had€no€ð ðfair€warningðð€of€the€extremeÐ  R% Ðcredit€limiting€consequences€and€reduction€of€his€ð ðeffective€sentenceðð€which€wouldÏfollow€from€his€criminal€acts.Ìà  àThe€mischief€arises€because€of€the€non„constitutional€statutory€construction€ofÏsection€2933.1€as€applying€ð ðto€the€offender,€not€the€offenseðð€by€the€court€in€òòPeopleóó€v.Ð &R!- ÐòòRamosóó€(1996)€50€Cal.App.4th€810šÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãté#ÔšÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ.€€Accord‚ing€to€òòRamosóó,€if€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€aÐ ‚'Ò"/ Ðòòsingleóó€qualifying€violent€felony,€his€entire€sentence,€including€consecutive€terms€on€non„Ð )R$1 Ðviolent€felonies,€is€subject€to€the€15€percent€credit€limitations.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€817.)€€€SmallÐ ‚*Ò%3 Ðminds,€such€as€those€inside€the€heads€of€many€trial€and€appellate€judges,€could€and€haveÏconcluded€that€the€logic€of€òòRamosóó€means€that€if€the€limitations€of€section€2933.1€appliesÐ ‚-Ò(7 Ðto€one€post„enactment€violent€felony,€the€defendant€is€thus€a€ð ðpersonðð€covered€by€theÏcredit€limits€of€section€2933.1,€which€would€then€apply€to€the€entirety€of€his€sentence,Ïviolent€or€nonviolent,€predating€or€postdating€the€effective€date€of€the€law.Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãsë#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔÐ ° Ðà  àÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š ÃÃî#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔHowever,€the€constitutional€prohibition€of€ex€post€facto€laws€means€that€theÐ 0 € Ðreasoning€of€òòRamosóó€cannot€be€applied€to€consecutive€sentences€imposed€for€crimes,Ð °  Ðviolent€or€not,€committed€òòprioróó€to€the€effective€date€of€section€2933.1.€€€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã&ï#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔThe€new€lawÐ 0 €  Ðð ðchanges€the€legal€consequencesðð€of€these€pre„enactment€acts€by€stringently€increasingÏthe€number€of€years€a€defendant€must€effectively€serve€as€punishment€for€such€crimes.€ÏOn€an€eight€year€sentence,€for€example,€with€half„time€credits€under€section€2933,€aÏdefendantððs€ð ðeffective€sentenceðð€pre„2933.1€was€4€years;€if€2933.1€is€applied,€hisÏeffective€sentence€is€6.8€years.€€Thus,€the€net€affect€of€section€2933.1€is€to€increase€theÏð ðeffective€sentenceðð€in€this€example€by€more€than€fifty€percent,€a€clear€violation€of€the€exÏpost€facto€prohibition€as€applied€to€the€crime€committed€before€the€new€lawððs€effectiveÏdate.Ìà  àOne€more€twist€on€the€same€issue.€€What€if,€as€suggested€above,€a€crime€for€whichÏyour€client€was€convicted€after€trial€or€on€which€he€entered€a€plea€was€allegedlyÏcommitted€during€a€time€period€that€òòstraddlesóóthe€effective€date€of€section€2933.1?€€InÐ °  Ðthat€situation,€you€can€still€argue€that€the€new€law€cannot€be€applied€without€violating€exÏpost€facto€unless€there€is€proof€in€the€record€of€conviction,€by€at€least€a€preponderanceÏstandard,€that€the€criminal€conduct€actually€took€place€after€the€effective€date€of€the€law.ÏÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã†ð#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ(See,€e.g.,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòLewisóó€(1991)€229€Cal.App.3d€259€and€Cal.€Rules€of€Court,€RuleÐ °"( Ð4.420(b),€formerly€Rule€420(b)€[preponderance€standard€applies€to€proof€of€sentencingÏfacts];€òòMcMillanóó€v.€òòPennsylvaniaóó€(1986)€477€U.S.€79,€91„92€[preponderance€standard€forÐ °%!, Ðdetermination€of€sentencing€facts€satisfies€Due€Process€Clause€of€14th€Amendment],Ïdisapproved€on€other€grounds€in€òòApprendióó€v.€òòNew€Jerseyóó€(2000)€530€U.S.€466,€484„487.)€Ð °($0 ЀÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã¢õ#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔà  àThere€is€one€published€appellate€case€on€this€issue,€òòÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãð÷#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔPeopleóó€v.€òòPalaciosóó€(1997)€56Ð 0*€%2 ÐCal.App.4th€252Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãvø#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ,€but€it€applies€only€to€the€unique€situation€of€the€ð ðcontinuing€crimeðð€ofÐ °+'4 Ðresident€child€molestation€under€section€288.5.€€The€question€presented€in€òòPalaciosóó€wasÐ 0-€(6 ÐÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãù#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔwhether€application€of€the€credit€reduction€provisions€of€section€2933.1€violated€the€exÐ ° Ðpost€facto€prohibitions€as€to€a€288.5€charge€when€at€least€one€of€the€alleged€underlyingÏacts€was€committed€before€the€operative€date€of€September€21,€1994.€€It€did€not,Ïaccording€to€the€court€in€òòPalaciosóó,€because€section€288.5€Ð 0 € ÐÓ€Óà8  àpunishes€a€continuous€course€of€conduct,€not€each€of€its€three€or€moreÏconstituent€acts€.€.€.,€[which]€cannot€logically€be€ððcompletedðð€until€the€lastÏrequisite€act€is€performed.€€Where€an€offense€is€of€a€continuing€nature,€andÏthe€conduct€continues€after€the€enactment€of€a€statute,€that€statute€may€beÏapplied€without€violating€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€¥ûÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€]ýÓ(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€257,€citations€omitted.)Ð 0€  Ðà  àBy€contrast,€other€sex€crimes,€such€as€rape€or€lewd€conduct,€involve€specificÏallegations€of€individual€criminal€acts,€and€not€courses€of€conduct,€even€when€theirÏcommission€is€alleged€to€have€occurred€within€a€wide€period€of€time.€€As€such,€in€orderÏfor€section€2933.1€to€apply€without€running€afoul€of€the€ex€post€facto€prohibitions,€thereÏmust€be€proof€in€the€record,€by€preponderance€of€evidence,€that€these€crimes€occurred€onÏor€after€September€21,€1994.€(See€Part€I„A€of€the€brief€in€Villa,€Attachment€E.)Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãú#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔÐ 0€ ÐÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãóÿ#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔà  àA€second€twist€and€a€cautionary€note:€If€your€client€pled€to€pre„effective€date€sexÐ ° Ðcrimes€as€part€of€a€plea€bargain,€the€Government€will€probably€try€to€argue€that€he€isÏestopped€from€challenging€the€credit€limitations€applied€to€his€sentence€because€theyÏwere€express€terms€of€the€plea€bargain.€(See,€e.g.,€òòÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š ÃJ#ÔÔ‡ŠT¸‹‹Š ÃÔIn€re€Troglinóó€(1975)€51€Cal.App.3dÐ 0€" Ð434€and€€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBeebeóó€(1989)€216€Cal.App.3d€927Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ŠT¸ä#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ.)€€Check€the€plea€transcriptÐ ° $ Ðcarefully.€€If€all€there€is€on€the€record€are€misadvisements€about€penal€consequences€(e.g.,Ïð ðYou€will€be€required€to€serve€85€percent€of€your€sentence€because€the€crimes€are€violentÏfeloniesðð),€argue€that€this€is€not€a€term€of€the€plea€bargain,€citing€òòÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãž#ÔÔ‡ŠT¸‹‹Š ÃÔPeopleóó€v.€òòWalkeróóÐ 0%€ * Ð(1991)€54€Cal.3d€1013,€1022„1025Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ŠT¸#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔòò€óófor€the€distinction,€and€that€thus€no€estoppel€applies.€Ð °&", ÐAnd,€even€if€the€credit€limits€are€implicitly€a€part€of€the€plea€bargain,€argue€that€noÏestoppel€applies€because€the€error€here€violates€a€clear€constitutional€principle,€citing€theÏnegative€pregnant€of€the€opinion€in€òòTroglinóó,€which€involved€a€plea€bargain€whose€termsÐ 0+€&2 Ðviolated€section€654,€where€the€court€held€that€a€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã¨#ÔÔ‡ŠT¸‹‹Š ÃÔdefendant,€like€the€prosecution,€must€beÐ °,(4 Ðð ðheld€strictly€to€the€termsðð€of€a€plea€bargain€ð ðat€least€where€no€public€policy,€or€statutoryÏor€decisional€or€constitutional€principle€otherwise€directs.€.€.€.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€438.)€€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ŠT¸—#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔHere,€aÐ 0€ Ðclear€constitutional€provision€ð ðotherwise€directs,ðð€and€a€defendant€cannot€be€estoppedÏfrom€challenging€the€portion€of€the€plea€bargain€which€seeks€to€impose€anÏunconstitutional€ex€post€facto€sentence.Ìà  àà ` àb.à ¸ àò òOther€Ex€Post€Facto€Credits€Issuesó óÐ 0 €  Ðà  àAssume€you€are€handling€a€case€where€your€client€stands€convicted,€after€trial€orÏplea,€with€crimes€committed€in€the€1980s.€€Itððs€important€in€this€situation€to€check€eachÏcomponent€of€the€sentence€imposed€carefully€to€make€sure€that€no€portion€of€theÏsentence,€fine,€or€order€is€based€on€a€punishment€provision€enacted€subsequent€to€yourÏclientððs€commission€of€his€criminal€act.€€One€obvious€example€is€the€parole€revocationÏfine€imposed€pursuant€to€section€1202.45€in€all€cases€where€a€prison€sentence€is€imposed.€ÏThis€fine€is€routinely€imposed€in€cases€where€the€crimes€were€committed€prior€to€itsÏeffective€date,€August€3,€1995,€in€clear€violation€of€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition.€(SeeÏòòPeopleóó€v.€òòCallejas€óó(2000)€85€Cal.€App.€4th€667.)€€Check€the€terms€of€the€sentence€andÐ ¶ Ðenhancements€imposed€against€the€terms€in€effect€at€the€time€the€crime€was€committed,Ïkeeping€in€mind€that€old€rules€like€the€ð ðdouble€the€base€termðð€limit€and€no„more„thanÏfive€year€consecutive€sentence€limit€may€have€still€applied.€ÌÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š ÃÝ#ÔÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÓà  à2.à8 ` àò òòòRosenkrantzóó€and€Gubernatorial€Power€to€Veto€Paroleó óÐ R%` x` x Ðà  àContinuing€its€recent€trend€of€misreading€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause,€the€CaliforniaÏSupreme€Court€in€òòÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔIn€re€Rosenkrantzóó€(2002)€29€Cal.4th€616Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã©#Ô€held€that€the€Clause€was€notÐ #X) Ðviolated€by€the€retroactive€initiative€law€which€for€the€first€time€gave€the€Governor€theÏauthority€to€veto€paroles€granted€by€the€Parole€Board.€€The€majority€in€òòRosenkrantzóóÐ &X!- Ðreasoned€that€the€new€law€did€not€increase€Rosenkrantzððs€punishment€because€it€did€notÏalter€the€standards€for€determining€parole€suitability,€but€only€added€an€additional€layerÏof€executive€control€over€parole€utilizing€the€same€standards.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€650„652.)Ð ˆ*Ø%3 Ðà  àIn€his€dissenting€opinion,€Justice€Chin€correctly€pointed€out€that€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔthe€application€ofÐ ,X'5 ÐProposition€89€to€cases€involving€crimes€committed€prior€to€its€enactment,€when€viewedÐ ˆ-Ø(7 Ðin€the€context€of€former€Governor€Davisððs€policy€and€practice€of€denying€parole€to€anyÏprisoner€he€believed€was€properly€convicted€of€murder,€ran€afoul€of€the€ex€post€factoÏprohibition€because€it€created€a€very€significant€risk€of€greater€punishment.€(SeeÏòòRosenkrantzóó,€òòsupraóó,€pp.€690„696,€diss.€opin.€of€Chin,€J.,€citing€òòGarner€v.€Jonesóó€(2000)Ð 0 € Ð529€U.S.€244,€255.)€€Justice€Chinððs€dissenting€view€appears€to€be€entirely€correct.€€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãƒ#ÔUnderÐ °  ÐòòGarner€v.€Jonesóó,€ð ð[t]he€controlling€inquiry€[is]€whether€retroactive€application€of€theÐ 0 €  Ðchange€in€.€.€.law€created€ðða€sufficient€risk€of€increasing€the€measure€of€punishmentÏattached€to€the€covered€crimes.ðððð€òòId.óó,€at€p.€250,€quoting€òòDept.€of€Corrections€v.€Moralesóó,Ð 0€  Ðòòsupraóó,€514€U.S.€at€509.€€In€òòMoralesóó,€there€was€no€such€ð ðsufficient€riskðð€because€the€newÐ °  Ðlaw€there€ð!ð€which€gave€the€Parole€Board€discretion€to€put€off€parole€review€for€threeÏyears,€instead€of€one,€in€cases€involving€multiple€murders€when€it€found€a€low€likelihoodÏof€release€ð!ð€did€not€modify€the€statutory€punishment€or€suitability€standards,€and€ð ðdid€notÏchange€the€basic€structure€of€Californiaððs€parole€law.ðð€(òòGarneróó,€òòsupraóó,€529€U.S.€at€pp.Ð ° Ð250„251.)Ìòòà  àGarner€óóinvolved€a€law€which€retroactively€increased€the€interval€between€paroleÐ ° Ðhearings€in€Georgia,€with€the€Supreme€Court€again€rejecting€an€ex€post€facto€challenge€toÏthis€detrimental€change€in€parole€procedures.€€The€key€basis€for€the€holding€in€òòGarneróóÐ °  Ðwas€that€an€exercise€of€discretion€is€implicit€in€the€parole€process,€and€that€ConstitutionalÏinterpretation€must€recognize€that€the€manner€in€which€discretion€is€exercised€evolvesÏover€time.€€ð ðThe€idea€of€discretion€is€that€it€has€the€capacity,€and€the€obligation,€toÏchange€and€adapt€based€on€experience.€New€insights€into€the€accuracy€of€predictionsÏabout€the€offense€and€the€risk€of€recidivism€consequent€upon€the€offenderððs€release,Ïalong€with€a€complex€of€other€factors,€will€inform€parole€decisions.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€253.)€Ð °%!, Ðà  àGiven€that€ð ð[t]he€controlling€inquiry€[is]€whether€retroactive€application€of€theÏchange€in€.€.€.law€created€ðða€sufficient€risk€of€increasing€the€measure€of€punishmentÏattached€to€the€covered€crimes€.€.€..ðððð€òòId.óó,€at€p.€250,€òòGarneróó€held€further€that€ð ð[w]hen€theÐ 0*€%2 Ðrule€does€not€by€its€own€terms€show€a€significant€risk,€the€respondent€must€demonstrate,Ïby€evidence€drawn€from€the€ruleððs€practical€implementation€by€the€agency€charged€withÐ 0-€(6 Ðexercising€discretion,€that€its€retroactive€application€will€result€in€a€longer€period€ofÏincarceration€than€under€the€earlier€rule.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€255.)Ð 0€ Ðà  àThis€language€from€òòGarneróó€sets€up€the€òòRosenkrantzóó€issue€very€nicely.€€TheÐ ° Ðmajority€in€òòRosenkrantzóó€treated€the€new€law€as€merely€ð ða€new€level€of€review€.€.€.ðð,€withÐ 0 € Ðno€substantive€change€in€the€way€parole€discretion€is€exercised,€and€as€thus€no€differentÏthan€a€change€in€personnel€in€the€Parole€Board.€€(òòRosenkrantzóó,€òòsupraóó,€29€Cal.4th€at€p.Ð 0 €  Ð650„652.)€€Justice€Chinððs€dissent€correctly€points€out€the€error€of€this€analysis,€explainingÏwhy€the€adding€of€a€new€level€of€gubernatorial€parole€review€creates€ð ða€sufficient€risk€ofÏincreasing€the€measure€of€punishment€attached€to€the€covered€crimes.ðð€€The€purpose€ofÏProposition€89,€as€stated€in€the€ballot€arguments,€was€to€permit€the€governor€to€blockÏparoles€granted€by€the€parole€board,€and€thus€to€prolong€the€incarceration,€and€lengthenÏthe€punishment€of€persons€affected€by€such€a€change.€€The€petitioner€in€òòRosenkrantzóó€hadÐ 0€ Ðdemonstrated€by€undisputed€evidence€that€the€utilization€of€this€power€by€the€then„¼current€governor€was€never€used€to€reverse€a€denial€of€parole,€and€was€used€in€a€two€yearÏperiod€to€block€48€out€of€49€paroles€granted.€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ€Thus,€while€Proposition€89€might€not,€onÐ ° Ðits€face,€create€a€sufficient€risk€of€increasing€punishment,€the€petitioner€in€òòRosenkrantzóó,Ð 0€ Ðand€anyone€in€the€same€situation,€could€and€did€show€from€evidence€of€the€new€lawððsÏð ðpractical€implementationðð€by€the€Governor,€ð ðÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãº"#Ôthat€its€retroactive€application€will€result€inÐ 0€" Ða€longer€period€of€incarceration€than€under€the€earlier€rule.ðð€(òòGarneróó,€at€p.€255;€seeÐ °$ ÐòòÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔRosenkrantzóó,€òòsupraóó,€pp.€690„696,€diss.€opin.€of€Chin,€J.Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãø$#Ô)Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔÐ 0!€& Ðà  àWhile€this€issue€will€be€lost€in€state€courts€under€principles€of€stare€decisis€(òòAutoÐ °"( ÐEquity€Sales,€Inc.€v.€Superior€Court€óó(1962)€57€Cal.2d€450,€455Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã|%#ÔÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ),€it€should€be€raised€andÐ 0$€* Ðpreserved€for€federal€review€in€all€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã&#Ôcases€involving€challenges€to€a€gubernatorial€veto€ofÐ °%!, Ðparole€where€the€underlying€crime€was€committed€prior€to€November€of€1988.ÌÔ_ÔñÒ ñÌñÒ ñÔ_ÔÔ_ÔñÒ ñÌñÒ ñÔ_ÔÓ€Óà  à3.à8 ` àò òRetroactive€Application€of€Propensity€Evidence€Laws,Ð °($0 ÐSuch€as€Evidence€Code€sections€1108€and€1109ó ó.д)%1` x` x ÐÓ€ÓÌÓ€€Óà  àThe€enactment€of€Evidence€Code€section€1108€in€1995€and€section€1109€theÏfollowing€year€created€a€major€change€in€the€law€regarding€admission€of€ð ðother€crimeððÐ ¸,(5 Ðevidence€in€sex€crime€and€domestic€violence€cases.€€Prior€to€these€enactments,€otherÏcrime€evidence€could€only€come€in,€under€Evidence€Code€section€1101(b),€to€proveÏdiscrete€facts€such€as€identity,€intent,€motive,€or€common€plan.€€After€these€enactments,Ïprior€crimes€were€admissible€for€any€purpose,€including€proof€of€a€propensity€to€commitÏsex€crimes€or€engage€in€acts€of€domestic€violence.Ìà  àA€strong€argument€can€(and€has)€been€made€that€these€laws€are€ex€post€facto€whenÏapplied€to€an€offender€whose€crimes€were€committed€prior€to€the€operative€date€of€theÏnew€law.€€This€argument€was€rejected€in€the€single€published€case€to€consider€it,€òòPeopleÐ 0€  Ðv.€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔFitchóó€(1997)€55€Cal.App.€4th€172.€€€But€the€reasoning€of€òòFitchóó€on€this€point€has€nowÐ °  Ðbeen€entirely€undermined.€€The€premise€of€the€holding€in€òòFitchóó€is€that€the€SupremeÐ 0€  ÐCourtððs€decisions€in€òòBeazellóó,€òòÔ#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ão,#ÔDobbertóó€and€òòCollinsóó€had€abrogated€òòCalderóóððs€FourthÐ ° ÐCategory€of€ex€post€facto€law,€a€premise€which€must€perforce€collapse€in€light€of€theÏcontrary€holding€in€òòCarmell,€supraóó,€Ô‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔ529€U.S.€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ã’.#Ô513.Ð ° ÐÔ‡ Š Ã‹‹Š ÃÔà  àSection€1108€and€1109,€when€applied€retroactively€to€crimes€committed€prior€toÐ 0€ Ðtheir€enactment,€constitute€classic€instances€of€Fourth€Category€ex€post€facto€laws.€€ByÏallowing€a€jury€to€consider€prior€uncharged€sexual€crimes€or€domestic€violence€asÏpropensity€evidence€from€which€they€can€infer€a€defendantððs€guilt€as€to€charged€crimes,Ïthe€new€laws€permit€convic‚tion€of€current€charged€crimes€on€ð ðdifferent€.€.€.€testimonyððÏthan€allowed€at€the€time€appellantððs€alleged€crimes€were€committed.€(òòCalderóó,€òòsupraóó,€Ô#†Š Ã‹‹ Š Ãö.#Ô3Ð °$ ÐU.S.€at€p.€390.)€€Instructions€given€to€the€jury€pursuant€to€sections€1108€and€1109€allow€aÏjury€to€conclude€that€a€defendant€ð ðwas€likely€to€and€did€commitðð€the€charged€crimes€fromÏthe€fact€that€he€committed€an€uncharged€sex€or€domestic€violence€crime€(See€CALJICÏ2.50.01€and€2.50.02);€thus€these€new€laws,€when€applied€retroactively,€amount€to€theÏkind€of€ð ðsufficiency€of€evidence€rule€.€.€.€lowering€the€quantum€of€evidence€required€toÏconvict.€.€.€.ðð€(òòCarmellóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€546)€€Ð °($0 Ðà  àLike€the€Texas€law€in€òòCarmellóó,€which€eliminated€the€requirement€that€a€rapeÐ 0*€%2 Ðvictimððs€testimony€be€corroborated€by€other€evidence€in€order€to€prove€guilt,€sectionÏ1108,€by€its€nature,€is€an€evidentiary€rule€which€ð ðwill€òòalwaysóó€run€in€the€prosecutionððsÐ 0-€(6 Ðfavor€[by]€mak[ing]€it€easier€to€convict€the€accused.€.€.€.ðð€(òòIbidóó.)€Section€1108€is€òòonlyóóÐ ° Ðapplicable€as€against€ð ðthe€defendantðð€in€ð ða€criminal€actionðð€(ðð€1108,€subd.€(a)),€and€isÏthus€not€a€neutral€evidentiary€rule€beyond€the€scope€of€òòCalderóóððs€Fourth€Category,€sinceÐ ° Ðsuch€laws€ð ðare€ordinarily€even‚handed,€in€the€sense€that€they€may€benefit€either€the€StateÏor€the€defen‚dant€in€any€given€case.ðð€(òòCarmellóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€533,€fn.€23.)Ð °  Ðà  àSince€there€will€continue€to€be€sex€crime€prosecutions€under€section€803(g)Ïinvolving€criminal€acts€committed€between€1988€and€1995,€the€question€whetherÏEvidence€Code€section€1108€is€an€ex€post€facto€law€is€one€which€can€be€expected€toÏrecur.€€Although€the€claim€has€been€rejectedòòóó€in€post„òòCarmellóó€unpublished€appellateÐ °  Ðopinions,€no€reported€case€has€yet€considered€this€issue€in€light€of€the€obvious€error€inÏthe€holding€in€òòFitchóó€and€the€revival€of€the€Fourth€Category€of€ex€post€facto€law.€€Thus,Ð ° Ðthis€issue€should€be€raised€in€the€trial€courts€and€litigated€on€appeal,€and€has€a€strongÏlikelihood€of€success€on€federal€habeas€review,€if€not€in€state€court€appeals.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÓÓ€Óà  à4.à8 ` àò òRetroactive€Changes€in€Probation€RevocationÐ |Ì ÐProcedures?€€A€Failed€Challenge.ó óЀÐ` x` x ÐÓ€:ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€Ì:Óà  àIn€òòJohn€L.€v.€Superior€Courtóó€(2004)€33€Cal.€4th€158,€the€California€SupremeÐ P ÐCourt€yet€again€rejected€an€ex€post€facto€challenge€to€the€retroactive€application€of€aÏchange€in€procedure,€this€time€concerning€amendments€to€the€Juvenile€Court€LawÏmandated€by€Proposition€21.€€The€new€laws€included€provisions€reducing€the€standard€ofÏproving€a€violation€of€juvenile€probation€from€ð ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubtðð€to€aÏpreponderance€of€evidence,€and€allowing€for€the€first€time€the€admissibility€of€ð ðreliableÏhearsayðð€to€prove€juvenile€probation€violations.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€165.)€€The€Supreme€CourtÐ $P* Ðrejected€the€ex€post€facto€claim€on€several€grounds.€€Preliminarily,€the€court€did€notÏdecide€the€question€whether€changes€to€the€law€involving€probation€violations€thatÏallegedly€occurred€after€the€change€in€law€could€be€considered€retroactive€because€theyÏresulted€in€an€increase€of€the€confine‚ment€period€for€the€original,€pre„amendment€sectionÏ602€offense,€noting€dictum€in€òòJohnson€v.€United€Statesóó€(2000)€529€U.S.€694,€700„701Ð €+Ð&4 Ðfavorable€to€the€retroactivity€claim.Ð -P(6 Ðà  àThe€court€then€proceeded€to€reject€ex€post€facto€challenges€based€on€the€FourthÏCategory€ð ðchange€in€evidenceðð€and€the€Third€Category€ð ðincrease€in€punishmentðð€claims.€ÏAs€to€the€first€claim,€the€State€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€the€Fourth€CategoryÏrecognized€in€òòCalderóó€and€òòCarmellóó€applied€only€to€changes€in€evidence€law€which€make€itÐ 0 € Ðeasier€to€convict€a€defendant€in€adult€court€and€in€its€juvenile€counterpart,€and€not€toÏchanges€in€rules€regarding€violations€of€probation.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€179„280.)€€€The€courtÐ 0 €  Ðrejected€the€ð ðincrease€in€punishmentðð€argument€as€well,€concluding€that€the€newÏamendments€do€no€more€than€ð ðenhance€the€juvenile€courtððs€opportunity€to€exerciseÏauthority€and€discretion€similar€to€what€it€possessed€.€.€.€in€the€pre„Proposition€21€form€.€.Ï.ðð€of€the€applicable€laws.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€184„185.)Ð 0€  Ðà  àUnfortunately,€the€opinion€in€òòJohn€L.óó€overruled€a€better€reasoned€lower€courtÐ ° Ðopinion€in€the€case€of€òòIn€re€Melvin€J.óó€(2000)€81€Cal.€App.€4th€742,€756,€which€reached€aÐ 0€ Ðcontrary€result.€€€To€the€extent€that€this€issue€can€be€challenged€in€federal€court,€the€exÏpost€facto€challenge€presented€in€these€cases€should€continue€to€be€raised€and€preservedÏfor€collateral€review.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÓà@%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ |Ì Ðà  àThe€High€Courtððs€latest€pronouncements€on€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause€show€aÏreturn€by€the€Court€to€the€earliest,€Founding€impulses€behind€the€creation€of€thisÏprimeval€protection€against€arbitrary€exercise€of€power€by€the€States.€€After€òòCarmellóó€andÐ üL% ÐòòStogneróó,€the€original€four€òòCalderóó€categories€remain€alive€and€well,€and€the€dogma€whichÐ |!Ì' Ðexcluded€changes€in€ð ðproceduralðð€rules€from€the€ambit€of€the€ex€post€facto€prohibitionÏhas€been€discredited.Ìà  àHowever,€the€prior€trend€towards€highly€restrictive€interpretations€of€the€ClauseÏcontinues€in€dark€corners€such€as€the€California€Supreme€Court.€€Hopefully,€òòStogneróó€willÐ |'Ì"/ Ðnot€be€the€last€case€where€a€federal€court€overturns€a€badly€reasoned€evasion€of€theÏð ðšfundamental€justiceššðð€of€a€meritorious€ex€post€facto€claim.€(òòCarmellóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€531,€&Ð |*Ì%3 Ðfn.€21.)Ìà  àIt€is€hoped€that€the€foregoing€analysis€and€discussion€has€provided€the€reader€withÐ |-Ì(7 Ða€better€understanding€of€this€oft„neglected€first„principle€of€criminal€Constitutional€lawñÊ ñ,Ïand€ñÊ ññË ññÊ ñhtat€iñÊ ññË ññÌ ñthat€it€will€ñÌ ññÍ ññÉ ñ.€€It€is€also€hoped€that€ñÉ ñ,€and€ñÍ ñsupplñÎ ñyñÎ ññÎ ñiesñÎ ñ€some€useful€tools€for€analyzing€ex€post€facto€claims€which€arise€inÏyour€own€criminal€appellate€practice.ñÓ ñÌñÓ ñ