H

Sometimes the Court leaves a door ajar and holds out the possibility that someone, someday might walk through it-though no one ever has or, in truth, ever will. In Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1989), the Court suggested that one day it might apply a new “watershed” rule of criminal procedure retroactively to undo a final state court conviction. But that day never came to pass. Instead, over the following three decades the Court denied “watershed” status to one rule after another. Rules guaranteeing individuals the right to confront their accusers. Rules ...