In the case of Ricky Bell, Warden v. Gary Bradford Cone (2004), the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a federal court could review a state court's decision not to reopen a post-conviction proceeding under Tennessee law. The petitioner, Gary Bradford Cone, had been convicted and sentenced to death for murder in 1982. He sought post-conviction relief on several occasions but was denied each time by the state courts. In this particular appeal, he argued that his constitutional rights were violated because certain mitigating evidence - specifically relating to his drug addiction at the time of crime - wasn't presented during sentencing due to ineffective assistance from his counsel. The Supreme Court ruled against Cone with an 8-to-1 majority vote stating that federal courts have no jurisdiction over such claims unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights or if it involves issues pertaining directly towards innocence or guilt verdicts which weren’t present in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Ricky Bell, Warden v. Gary Bradford Cone, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to grant Cone a new hearing on his claim that prosecutors withheld potentially exculpatory evidence at trial. He argued that there was no reasonable probability that disclosure of this evidence would have led to a different outcome in Cone's case because it did not undermine the prosecution’s argument about his motive or intent during the crimes he committed. Furthermore, Scalia contended that even if this information had been disclosed and used by defense attorneys to argue against death penalty sentencing due to drug addiction as an extenuating circumstance, it wouldn't have made any difference given other overwhelming evidence presented by prosecutors showing premeditation and brutality in these crimes. Therefore, according to Scalia’s view, withholding such information didn’t violate Brady v Maryland ruling which requires full disclosure of all material evidences by prosecution.