Acknowledgement of receipt (03/28/08) of judgment from Clerk, Supreme Court of Minnesota received.

Record returned to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Record returned to the District Court, 4th Judicial District of Minnesota.

MANDATE ISSUED. (orders list)

Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsubrg, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Kennedy, J., joined.

Argued. For petitioner: Benjamin J. Butler, Assistant Minnesota State Public Defender, Minneapolis, Minn. For respondent: Patrick C. Diamon, Deputy County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minn.

Record received from District Court of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District (Hennepin County), (1 box).

Reply of petitioner Stephen Danforth filed. (Distributed)

Record received from the Supreme Court of Minnesota. (1 envelope)

Motion of Kansas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument DENIED. (orders list)

Petitioner's opposition to motion of Kansas, et al. filed.

Motion of Kansas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument filed.

SET FOR ARGUMENT Wednesday, October 31, 2007.

CIRCULATED.

Brief of respondent Minnesota filed.

Brief amici curiae of Alaska, et al. filed.

Brief amici curiae of Kansas, et al. in support of neither party filed.

Brief of petitioner Stephen Danforth filed.

Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.

Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.

The time within which to file petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 19, 2007.

Joint appendix filed.

Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received)

Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. (orders list)

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 17, 2007.

Supplemental reply of petitioner Stephen Danforth filed.

Supplemental response of respondent Minnesota filed.

Further Response Requested directed specifically to the following question: Are state supreme courts required to use the standard announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), to determine whether United States Supreme Court decisions apply retr...

Further Response Requested directed specifically to the following question: Are state supreme courts required to use the standard announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), to determine whether United States Supreme Court decisions apply retroact

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 23, 2007.

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 16, 2007.

Reply of petitioner Stephen Danforth filed.

Brief of respondent Minnesota in opposition filed.

Response Requested . (Due February 9, 2007)

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 19, 2007.

Waiver of right of respondent Minnesota to respond filed.

Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 11, 2007)

Stephen Danforth, Petitioner, represented by Benjamin J. Butler

Minnesota, Respondent, represented by Patrick C. Diamond

Minnesota, Respondent, represented by Jean Burdorf

Minnesota, Respondent, represented by Michael K. Walz

Alaska, et al., Amicus Curiae, represented by Timothy W. Terrell

American Civil Liberties Union, et al., Amicus Curiae, represented by Larry Yackle

Kansas, et al., Amicus Curiae, represented by Stephen Robert McAllister

Kansas, et al., Amicus Curiae, represented by Stephen R. McAllister

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amicus Curiae, represented by Jeffrey A. Lamken