Cone v. Bell

Last updated
Cone v. Bell
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 9, 2008
Decided April 28, 2009
Full case nameCone v. Bell, Warden
Docket no. 07–1114
Citations556 U.S. 449 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 1769; 173 L. Ed. 2d 701
Case history
Prior492 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2007); cert. granted, 554 U.S. 916(2008).
See Bell v. Cone , 535 U.S. 685 (2002) for additional prior history.
Holding
Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded to United States District Court to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceRoberts (in judgment)
Concur/dissentAlito
DissentThomas, joined by Scalia
Laws applied
U. S. Const. amend. XIV

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. [1] The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior. [2] In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process; the Court noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree". [3] In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row. [4]

Contents

Background

In 1982, Gary Cone was convicted and sentenced to death for a crime spree that included the robbery of a jewelry store, a police pursuit, and the murder of an elderly couple. [5] At trial, Cone's attorney argued that he was not guilty by reason of insanity, and several experts testified that Cone suffered from a long history of drug abuse and post traumatic stress disorder resulting from his military service during the Vietnam War. [6] According to one expert, Cone's long-term drug abuse caused hallucinations and paranoia that "affected respondent's mental capacity and ability to obey the law." [7] The jury rejected Cone's insanity defense and found him guilty on all counts. [8] At a sentencing hearing, Cone's attorney did not present evidence of Cone's drug use as mitigating evidence. [9] Cone's attorney also waived his final argument so that the prosecutors would not have an opportunity for a rebuttal argument. [10] The trial court ultimately sentenced Cone to death, and on appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Cone's convictions and sentence. [11]

Previous petitions for postconviction relief

After the Tennessee Supreme Court denied Cone's direct appeal in 1984, Cone filed a petition for postconviction relief in which he argued that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by waiving his closing argument and by failing to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial. [12] After conducting a hearing on Cone's petition, a Tennessee state court rejected Cone's contentions, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. [13] The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that Cone's attorney acted within an acceptable range of competency and that Cone "received the death penalty based on the law and facts, not on the shortcomings of counsel." [14] Both the Tennessee Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court declined to consider further appeals. [15]

In 1997, Cone filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. [16] In his petition, he alleged that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his trial, but the federal district court denied his petition. [17] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling with respect to Cone's conviction, but it revered the district court's ruling with respect to Cone's sentence. [18] The Sixth Circuit held that Cone "suffered a Sixth Amendment violation for which prejudice should be presumed" because his attorney's failure to ask for mercy "did not subject the State's call for the death penalty to meaningful adversarial testing." [19] Additionally, the Sixth Circuit held that the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals decision constituted "an unreasonable application of the clearly established law". [20] In 2001, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. [21]

Bell v. Cone

In Bell v. Cone , in an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit for further proceedings. [22] Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Tennessee state court correctly identified Strickland v. Washington's two-part test as the proper legal standard for effective assistance of counsel when it rejected Cone's petition for postconviction relief. [23] Citing various "tactical reasons" why Cone's attorney did not present mitigating evidence, Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that the jury still had an opportunity to consider whether "evidence of a mental disease or defect" should mitigate Cone's ultimate sentence. [24] Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Cone's attorney "entirely fail[ed] to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing." [25]

Further proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

On remand, the Sixth Circuit ordered a new sentencing hearing "based on the purported invalidity of an aggravating circumstance found by the jury." [26] In a per curiam opinion, Bell v. Cone (2005), the United States Supreme Court again reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision. [27] The case then returned to the Sixth Circuit for a third time. [28] In a 2007 opinion, the Sixth Circuit reconsidered whether the prosecution violated Cone's rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment [29] by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have corroborated his claims about the effects of his drug use. [2] The Sixth Circuit rejected Cone's claims, holding the due process claims were procedurally barred by the Tennessee state courts in prior proceedings. [30] The Sixth Circuit noted that even if the police reports and witness statements were admitted, they would not outweigh "overwhelming evidence of Cone’s guilt in committing a brutal double murder and the persuasive testimony that Cone was not under the influence of drugs." [31]

Opinion of the Court

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the Sixth Circuit's 2007 ruling. [32] In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone's due process claims should not have been procedurally barred, and the Supreme Court remanded the case to the United States District Court that first examined Cone's habeas petition, "with instructions to give full consideration to the merits of Cone’s [due process] claim." [33] Justice Stevens noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree, and that the State’s arguments to the contrary were false and misleading." [34] On April 19, 2016, Gary Cone died of natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.

Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), was the United States Supreme Court ruling that held that laws permitting the compulsory sterilization of criminals are unconstitutional as it violates a person's rights given under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause, as well as the Due Process Clause. The relevant Oklahoma law applied to "habitual criminals", but the law excluded white-collar crimes from carrying sterilization penalties.

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.

2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case challenging the permissibility of new DNA forensic evidence that becomes available post-conviction, in capital punishment appeals when those claims have defaulted pursuant to state law. The Court found that admitting new DNA evidence was in line with Schlup v. Delo (1995), which allows cases to be reopened in light of new evidence.

Philip Workman

Philip Ray Workman was a death row inmate executed in Tennessee on May 9, 2007. He was convicted in 1982 for the murder of a police officer following a robbery of a Wendy's restaurant in Memphis, Tennessee, and sentenced to death by lethal injection.

2007 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2007 term, which began October 1, 2007 and concluded September 30, 2008.

District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause does not require states to turn over DNA evidence to a party seeking a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Paul G. Cassell American judge

Paul George Cassell is a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, who is currently the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in, and proponent of, victims' rights.

Amul Thapar United States federal judge

Amul Roger Thapar is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He is a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Thapar was the first South Asian federal judge in American history. He was also President Trump's first Court of Appeals appointment and Trump's second judicial appointment after Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thapar is frequently discussed as a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that federal law gave indigent death row inmates the right to federally appointed counsel to represent them in post-conviction state clemency proceedings, when the state has declined to do so. Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court on June 23, 2008.

2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal court cannot give a criminal defendant a longer sentence to promote rehabilitation.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court decision on the applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It further examined issues of previous court decisions on jury instructions and the effectiveness of counsel.

Tanco v. Haslam was the lead case in the dispute of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs, three same-sex couples. The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear, a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive." On April 25, 2014, that injunction was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tanco was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on November 6.

2014 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2014 term, which began October 6, 2014 and concluded October 4, 2015.

2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld a death sentence despite the defendant's argument that he should not be sentenced to death because he was suffering from drug-induced psychosis when he committed the crimes. Cone also argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to present sufficient mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial and that his attorney inappropriately waived his final argument during the sentencing phase. In an 8–1 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court denied Cone's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the actions taken by Cone's attorney during the sentencing phase were "tactical decisions" and that the state courts that denied Cone's appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established law. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Cone was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to "subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing."

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

References

  1. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 476 (2009).
  2. 1 2 Cone v. Bell, 492F.3d743 (6th Cir.2007).
  3. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 471, 476 (2009).
  4. 1 2 Stuart Ervin, Death row inmate Gary Cone dies WSMV (April 20, 2016).
  5. ↑ Bell v. Cone , 535 U.S. 685, 689 (2002).
  6. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 690.
  7. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 690 (noting that Cone's drug use caused "chronic amphetamine psychosis, hallucinations, and ongoing paranoia").
  8. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 690.
  9. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 706 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  10. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 691–92.
  11. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 692 (citing State v. Cone, 665 S.W. 2d. 87 (1984)).
  12. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 692.
  13. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 692 (citing Cone v. State, 747 S.W. 2d. 353 (1987)).
  14. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 692 (citing Cone v. State, 747 S.W. 2d. at 356–58).
  15. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 692 (citing Cone v. Tennessee, 488 U. S. 871 (1988)).
  16. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 692–93.
  17. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 693.
  18. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 693 (citing Cone v. Bell, 243 F.3d 961, 979 (6th Cir. 2001)).
  19. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 693 (citing Cone v. Bell, 243 F.3d at 979) (quotation taken from Supreme Court opinion).
  20. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 693 (citing Cone v. Bell, 243 F.3d at 979; Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984)) (quotation taken from Supreme Court opinion).
  21. ↑ Bell v.Cone, 534 U.S. 1064 (2001).
  22. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 693, 702.
  23. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 698 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694) ("We hold, therefore, that the state court correctly identified the principles announced in Strickland as those governing the analysis of respondent's claim.").
  24. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 699–701.
  25. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 702, 718–19 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  26. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. at 463 (citing Cone v. Bell, 359 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2004).
  27. ↑ Bell v. Cone , 543 U.S. 447, 452–58 (2005) (per curiam).
  28. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. at 463.
  29. ↑ See Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
  30. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 492 F.3d at 753.
  31. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 492 F.3d at 756.
  32. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. at 464, 476 ("We granted certiorari to answer the question whether a federal habeas claim is 'procedurally defaulted' when it is twice presented to the state courts." (Internal quotations omitted)).
  33. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. at 476.
  34. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. at 471.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.