Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Collins v. Youngblood — Opinion of the Court (1990)

Clause of the Constitution [1] has been construed to embrace any law that deprives a person accused of crime of a "substantial protection" that the law afforded at the time of the alleged offense. Thus, the Clause prohibits not only the retroactive creation of new criminal offenses and more harsh penalties, but also substantial changes in procedure that are designed to protect the defendant from a wrongful conviction.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Collins v. Youngblood — Opinion of the Court (1990)

Whatever else may be said of the factors that determine whether a procedural protection affects substantial rights, it is difficult to imagine how a retroactive law could, when viewed from the standpoint of the date the offense was committed, implicate substantial rights of any defendant if the law does no more than expand the flexibility of postconviction processes available to the State with respect to a defendant who is subject to a valid conviction and sentence.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Collins v. Youngblood — Opinion of the Court (1990)

Finally, he does not argue that he has been deprived of any avenue of review for correcting errors that may have vitiated the validity of his conviction or sentence. For example, respondent does not contend-and we do not see how he could plausibly contend-that the State has deprived him of any opportunity to challenge his conviction on the ground that the improper sentencing instruction somehow infected the jury's deliberations about his guilt or about the propriety of life imprisonment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature