context: In accord, Fourth Circuit precedent has indicated a narrow, literal view of Teague's first exception.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 961 F.2d 448, 453-54
citation_a.parenthetical: finding Teague's first exception inapplicable to the case because the conduct proscribed was capital murder, which obviously may be prosecuted
citation_a.sentence: See Bassette v. Thompson, 915 F.2d 932, 939 (4th Cir.1990) (giving examples such as a state forbidding the sale of contraceptives or forbidding interracial marriages as individual 'conduct beyond the power of laws to regulate); see also Williams v. Dixon, 961 F.2d 448, 453-54 (4th Cir.1992) (finding Teague’s first exception inapplicable to the case because the conduct proscribed was capital murder, which obviously may be prosecuted). Teague’s first exception does not automatically apply if a particular defendant would have a different outcome under the new rule.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 915 F.2d 932, 939
citation_b.parenthetical: giving examples such as a state forbidding the sale of contraceptives or forbidding interracial marriages as individual 'conduct beyond the power of laws to regulate
citation_b.sentence: See Bassette v. Thompson, 915 F.2d 932, 939 (4th Cir.1990) (giving examples such as a state forbidding the sale of contraceptives or forbidding interracial marriages as individual 'conduct beyond the power of laws to regulate); see also Williams v. Dixon, 961 F.2d 448, 453-54 (4th Cir.1992) (finding Teague’s first exception inapplicable to the case because the conduct proscribed was capital murder, which obviously may be prosecuted). Teague’s first exception does not automatically apply if a particular defendant would have a different outcome under the new rule.