WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously rejected a Las Vegas man's argument that he should not have been convicted of molesting his 6-year-old stepdaughter because his lawyer was not allowed to cross-examine her.
Marvin Bockting is serving a life sentence at the Nevada State Prison in Carson City after his 1988 conviction of raping his stepdaughter the year before.
Advertisement
During arguments last November before the U.S. Supreme Court, Nevada Federal Public Defender Franny Forsman, who represented Bockting, cited a 2004 ruling by the court which denies testimony from witnesses who do not appear at trial.
But in the 9-0 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court said the 2004 ruling in Crawford v. Washington was "procedural and not substantive" and would not apply to older cases like Bockting's.
"The (2004 ruling) did not affect a change of this magnitude," Alito wrote.
Alito said the 2004 ruling "is much more limited in scope" than the landmark 1963 decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed legal representation for defendants. The Supreme Court has refused a dozen times over 17 years to apply new rules of criminal procedure to older cases.
Forsman, in a telephone interview, said she was disappointed and surprised that the decision was unanimous.
"You can have all the lawyers in the world, but it won't do you much good if you can't cross-examine witnesses," Forsman said of the case.
Bockting is ineligible for parole, Forsman said, because he refuses to admit he sexually abused his stepdaughter.
But Forsman added Bockting's case is not over.
The Supreme Court ruling sends the case back to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will consider evidence that will include the statements of Bockting's stepdaughter.
In the 1988 trial, the youngster's mother, Laura Bockting, and Charles Zinovitch, a detective with the Metropolitan Police Department, were allowed to testify about the girl's description of the rape after a judge ruled the girl was too distressed to testify.
Former Nevada Attorney General George Chanos, who argued for the state against Bockting at the November hearing, said he also was surprised by the court's unanimous decision.
"I believe that the court made the correct decision, and given the court's unanimity, it should remove any doubt anyone might have that (Bockting's conviction) was in fact the correct decision," Chanos said in a telephone interview.
Chanos, who said he is "taking some well deserved time off," after declining to pursue a new term as attorney general last fall, expressed a desire to appear again before the Supreme Court.
"To me, it's like a temple," Chanos said. "If someone told me I could argue before the Supreme Court once a year, I would have continued to run for attorney general. But that is not what the job entails."
