Term: 2008
Docket: 07-1114
Gary Bradford Cone v. Ricky Bell, Warden
- Pro
07-1114 CONE V. BELL DECISION BELOW: 492 F3d 743 CERT. GRANTED 6/23/2008 QUESTION PRESENTED: On state post-conviction review, the Tennessee courts refused to consider petitioner’s claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), on the ground that the claim had already been “previously determined” in the state system. On federal habeas, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit held that the state courts’ ruling precluded consideration of the Brady claim. The court of appeals reasoned (in conflict with decisions of five other circuits) that the claim had been “procedurally defaulted.” The court of appeals further reasoned (widening an existing four-to-two circuit split) that the state courts’ ruling was unreviewable. Seven judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The question presented is whether petitioner is entitled to federal habeas review of his claim that the State suppressed material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, which encompasses two sub-questions: 1. Is a federal habeas claim “procedurally defaulted” because it has been presented twice to the state courts? 2. Is a federal habeas court powerless to recognize that a state court erred in holding that state law precludes reviewing a claim? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 99-5279
In the 2008 case of Gary Bradford Cone v. Ricky Bell, Warden, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cone, a death row inmate convicted for murder. The court found that evidence potentially supporting his insanity defense had been withheld by prosecutors during his trial and appeals process. This evidence suggested that Cone's actions at the time of crime were influenced by drug addiction which could have supported an insanity plea or mitigated against capital punishment. The state courts had rejected this argument on procedural grounds without considering its merits but the Supreme Court held that such dismissal was inappropriate under federal law governing habeas corpus petitions from state prisoners. Therefore, it remanded back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
In the dissenting opinion for Gary Bradford Cone v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Justice Alito argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by reevaluating evidence and making factual determinations that should have been left to state courts. He contended that there was no clear and convincing evidence contradicting the state court's findings regarding Cone's drug use at the time of his crimes. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on materiality; in his perspective, even if all suppressed evidence were considered, it would not have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome given other overwhelming incriminating evidences against Cone. Therefore, he concluded that federal habeas relief was unwarranted in this case.
