factor was stated recurringly throughout its opinion. See Griffith, supra, 107 S.Ct. at 712-16. At the end of its opinion, the Court concluded that “a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases ... pending on direct review or not yet final.” Thus, the Court one last time stated it was applying this rule to all cases “pending on direct review” and added, of course, “or not yet final,” meaning, I believe, cases not having reached as far as the stage of “direct review,” viz., cases in the trial stage. It is apparent that if a defendant in the direct review stage is to get such benefits, a defendant who is still at the preceding trial court stage, and has not yet reached the appellate stage, should also benefit. Interestin Ct. at [714] (<HOLDING>); see e.g., Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S.
holding newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases state or federal pending on direct review or not yet final with no exception holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review holding that batson v kentucky does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review