understanding of the bedrock procedural elements" essential to the fairness of a
proceeding. Teague. 489 U.S. at 311-128 (quoting Mackev v. United States. 401 U.S.
667, 693-94, 91 S. Ct. 1160, 28 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1971)). "It is not enough for the right to
be important; it must also play a vital instrumental role in securing a fair trial." State v.
Evans, 154 Wn.2d 438, 445, 114 P.3d 627 (2005).
The Court has repeatedly emphasized the limited scope of the second Teague
exception. O'Dell v. Netherland. 521 U.S. 151, 157, 117 S. Ct. 1969, 138 L. Ed. 2d 351
(1997) (citing Graham v. Collins. 506 U.S. 461, 478, 113 S. Ct. 892, 122 L. Ed. 2d 260
(1993)). Because any rule " 'would be so central to an accurate determination of
innocence or guilt [that it is] unlikely that many such components of basic due process
have yet to emerge,'" the Supreme Court has yet to find a new rule that falls under the
second Teague exception. Graham, 506 U.S. at 478 (quoting Teague. 489 U.S. at
313). " This class of rules is extremely narrow, and it is unlikely that any . . . ha[s] yet to
emerge.'" Markel, 154Wn.2d at 2699 (quoting Schriro, 542 U.S. at 352).
The only rule the United States Supreme Court has identified as an example of
what might fall within the watershed rule exception is Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963). The Court states that Gideon " 'alter[ed] our
7(Emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
8(Emphasis in original.)
9(Alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
12
No. 68168-1-1/13
understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a