Bell v. Cone

Last updated
Bell v. Cone
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 25, 2002
Decided May 28, 2002
Full case nameRicky Bell, Warden v. Gary Bradford Cone
Docket nos. 01-400
Citations535 U.S. 685 ( more )
122 S. Ct. 1843; 152 L. Ed. 2d 914
Argument Oral argument
Prior historyCone v. Bell, 956 F. Supp. 1401 (W.D. Tenn. 1997); affirmed in part, reversed in part, 243 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2001); cert. granted, 534 U.S. 1064(2001).
Subsequent historyCone v. Bell, 359 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2004), reversed and remanded by Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447 (2005) (per curiam); Cone v. Bell, 492 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2007), vacated by Cone v. Bell , 556 U.S. 449, 463 (2009).
Holding
Tennessee state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established law when determining whether the defendant in this case was denied effective assistance of counsel
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentStevens
Laws applied
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C.   § 2254(d)

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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] 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. [4] 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." [5]

Supreme Court of the United States Highest court in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, such as suits between two or more states, and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about 100–150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review.

In United States law, ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant asserting that the defendant's legal counsel performed so ineffectively that it deprived the defendant of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Having the 'benefit of counsel' or 'assistance of counsel' means that the criminal defendant has had a competent attorney representing them. Competence is defined as reasonable professional assistance and is defined in part by prevailing professional norms and standards. To prove they received ineffective assistance, a criminal defendant must show two things:

  1. Deficient performance by counsel
  2. Resulting prejudice, in that but for the deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have differed
Chief Justice of the United States senior justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Chief Justice of the United States is the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, and as such the highest-ranking judge of the federal judiciary. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution grants plenary power to the President of the United States to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, appoint a chief justice, who serves until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die.

Contents

Commentators have noted that Bell v. Cone is significant because it clarified the standards that should be used when determining ineffective assistance of counsel claims. [6] Other commentators have suggested that the Court's ruling has made it more difficult for state prisoners to receive habeas relief in federal court. [7] After several additional appeals, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Cone v. Bell (2009) that Cone should receive a new hearing in federal trial court to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence violated Cone's rights to due process under Brady v. Maryland . [8] In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row. [9]

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. 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. 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". In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant to the defense. The prosecution failed to do so for Brady and he was convicted. Brady challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

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. [10] 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. [11] 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." [12] The jury rejected Cone's insanity defense and found him guilty on all counts. [11] At a sentencing hearing, Cone's attorney did not present evidence of Cone's drug use as mitigating evidence. [13] Cone's attorney also waived his final argument so that the prosecutors would not have an opportunity for a rebuttal argument. [14] The trial court ultimately sentenced Cone to death, and on appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Cone's convictions and sentence. [15]

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themselves or to others.

Appeal process for reviewing and changing court decisions

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law. Although appellate courts have existed for thousands of years, common law countries did not incorporate an affirmative right to appeal into their jurisprudence until the 19th century.

Tennessee Supreme Court the highest court in the U.S. state of Tennessee

The Tennessee Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial tribunal of the state of Tennessee. Jeffrey S. Bivins is the Chief Justice.

Petitions for postconviction relief

Cone later 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. [16] 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. [17] 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." [18] Both the Tennessee Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court declined to consider further appeals. [19]

In 1997, Cone filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. [20] 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. [21] 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. [22] 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." [23] Additionally, the Sixth Circuit held that the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals decision constituted "an unreasonable application of the clearly established law". [24] In 2001, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. [25]

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

Opinion of the Court

William Rehnquist.jpg
John Paul Stevens, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Chief Justice William Rehnquist (pictured left) described Cone's attorney's actions as "tactical decision about which competent lawyers might disagree", while Justice John Paul Stevens (pictured right) noted that experts described the attorney's actions as "highly abnormal, and perhaps unprecedented in a capital case." [26]

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. [27] 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. [28] Under this standard, Cone would need to demonstrate that his attorney's "representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different". [29] Additionally, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that in order to presume prejudice under the standards set forth in United States v. Cronic, [30] an attorney's failure to subject a case to adversarial scrutiny "must be complete." [31] Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that Cone would also need to demonstrate that the Tennessee court "applied Strickland to the facts of his case in an objectively unreasonable manner", but he was unable to do so in this case. [32] 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. [33] Finally, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the attorney's choice to waive his closing argument was a "tactical decision about which competent lawyers might disagree." [34]

The remand court procedure is used by higher courts to send cases back to lower courts for further action.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.

Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion

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." [5] Justice Stevens argued that the attorney's decision to not present mitigating evidence relied upon the incorrect assumption that the jury already had sufficient information regarding mitigating factors. [35] Additionally, Justice Stevens argued that the jury would have viewed the absence of a closing argument as a "concession that no case for life could be made." [36] Justice Stevens also noted that expert witnesses who testified at Cone's postconviction hearings described Cone's attorney's actions as "highly abnormal, and perhaps unprecedented in a capital case." [37] In light of these facts, Justice Stevens argued that the Court should presume that Cone suffered a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. [38]

Subsequent developments

On remand, the Sixth Circuit ordered a new sentencing hearing "based on the purported invalidity of an aggravating circumstance found by the jury." [39] In a per curiam opinion, Bell v. Cone (2005), the United States Supreme Court again reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision. [40] The case then returned to the Sixth Circuit for a third time. [41] In a 2007 opinion, the Sixth Circuit reconsidered whether the prosecution violated Cone's rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment [42] by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have corroborated his claims about the effects of his drug use. [43] The Sixth Circuit rejected Cone's claims, holding the due process claims were procedurally barred by the Tennessee state courts in prior proceedings. [44] 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." [45]

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the Sixth Circuit's 2007 ruling. [46] In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens in Cone v. Bell (2009), 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." [47] 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." [48] On April 19, 2016, Gary Cone died of natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row. [9]

Analysis and commentary

Justin Rand noted that Bell v. Cone is significant because it clarified that prejudice will only be presumed in the three circumstances outlined in United States v. Cronic and that all other cases will be analyzed under Strickland v. Washington's standards for evaluating prejudice. [49] However, Jennifer Williams suggested that the Court's ruling intended to limit presumptions of prejudice to cases in which there is a "complete" failure to challenge the prosecution. [50] David A. Moran wrote that the Court's ruling in Bell reaffirmed that "the Cronic rule should apply to absences of counsel from critical stages of a criminal trial." [51] Robert J. Nolan suggested that an "appropriate" interpretation of the Court's ruling would allow judges to presume prejudice for "unauthorized concessions" made during opening arguments because Supreme Court precedent requires that defense counsel "engage in meaningful adversarial testing." [52]

In his review of the case for the Suffolk University Law Review, Marc L. Gouthro, wrote that the Supreme Court "correctly" and "accurately" applied existing law to the facts of the case; he also suggested that the Court's ruling "provided concrete guidance for the lower courts to follow when making future decisions." [53] However, in his analysis of the case for the Mercer Law Review, Stuart E. Walker suggested that the Court's narrow interpretation of standards for federal habeas relief presents a "formidable barrier" to habeas petitioners and, "[g]iven the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell v. Cone, many state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief for ineffective assistance claims may face a dim future." [54] Wayne M. Helge also wrote that "viewed in light of Strickland's presumption of reasonable professional conduct by counsel," the Supreme Court's ruling will ultimately make "state court holdings practically unchallengeable on the merits." [55]

See also

Related Research Articles

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the effective assistance of counsel during a criminal trial.

2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.

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.

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court spelled out standards for "effectiveness" in the constitutional right to legal counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Previously the court had determined that the Sixth Amendment included the right to "effective assistance" of legal counsel, but it did not specify what constitutes "effective", thus leaving the standards for effectiveness vague. In Wiggins v. Smith, the court set forth the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Guideline 11.8.6.(1989), as a specific guideline by which to measure effectiveness and competence of legal counsel.

McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court considered the role of standby counsel in a criminal trial where the defendant conducted his own defense. In this case the defendant claimed his Sixth Amendment right to present his own case in a criminal trial was violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel.

Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole under Texas' three strikes law for a felony fraud crime, where the offense and the defendant's two prior offenses involved approximately $230 of fraudulent activity.

Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Payne narrowed two of the Courts' precedents: Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989).

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.

Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case dealt with a technical question of law relating to whether a showing of prejudice in incorrect sentencing decisions is required for a correction of that sentence.

Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.

Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a federal prisoner who sought to challenge his current sentence by arguing it was enhanced based on an unconstitutional prior conviction. A divided Court held that such challenges could not be brought. The decision was based on a reading of the statute in question, not a Sixth Amendment constitutional analysis.

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.

Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. ___ (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a state court makes a factual determination the federal courts must defer to its judgment so long as it is reasonable.

Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied. Justice Scalia wondered if the same logic could be extended and applied to numerous other cases, and felt it would be impossible for attorneys to make sure any client was informed of all the potential legal consequences post trial.

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.

Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of the defendant Duane Buck after the defendant's attorney introduced evidence that suggested the defendant would be more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he was black.

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. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 689-90, 702 (2002); id. at 705 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  2. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 690–92; id. at 705–07 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  3. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 702 (reversing a prior ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remanding for further proceedings).
  4. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 699–702.
  5. 1 2 Bell, 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).
  6. ↑ See, e.g., Justin Rand, Pro Se Paternalism: The Contractual, Practical, and Behavioral Cases for Automatic Reversal, 163 U. Penn. L. Rev. 283, 292–93 (2014); Jennifer Williams, Criminal Law—The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel—The Supreme Court Minimizes the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel by Maximizing the Deference Awarded to Barely Competent Defense Attorneys. Florida v. Nixon, 125 S. Ct. 551 (2004)., 28 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 149, 170 (2005).
  7. ↑ See, e.g., Stuart E. Walker, "What We Meant Was . . ." The Supreme Court Clarifies Two Ineffective Assistance Cases in Bell v. Cone, 54 Mercer L. Rev. 1271, 1288 (2003); Wayne M. Helge, Know Your Client: The Mundane Case of Wiggins v. Smith, 10 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 581, 594 (2005).
  8. ↑ Cone v. Bell , 556 U.S. 449 (2009).
  9. 1 2 Stuart Ervin, Death row inmate Gary Cone dies WSMV (April 20, 2016).
  10. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 689.
  11. 1 2 Bell, 535 U.S. at 690.
  12. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 690 (noting that Cone's drug use caused "chronic amphetamine psychosis, hallucinations, and ongoing paranoia").
  13. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 706 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  14. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 691–92.
  15. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 692 (citing State v. Cone, 665 S.W. 2d. 87 (1984)).
  16. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 692.
  17. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 692 (citing Cone v. State, 747 S.W. 2d. 353 (1987)).
  18. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 692 (citing Cone v. State, 747 S.W. 2d. at 356–58).
  19. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 692 (citing Cone v. Tennessee, 488 U. S. 871 (1988)).
  20. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 692–93.
  21. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 693.
  22. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 693 (citing Cone v. Bell, 243 F.3d 961, 979 (6th Cir. 2001)).
  23. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 693 (citing Cone v. Bell, 243 F.3d at 979) (quotation taken from Supreme Court opinion).
  24. ↑ Bell, 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).
  25. ↑ Bell v.Cone, 534 U.S. 1064 (2001).
  26. ↑ Compare Bell, 535 U.S. at 702 with id. at 714–15 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  27. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 693, 702.
  28. ↑ Bell, 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.").
  29. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 698 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  30. ↑ 466 U.S. 648 (1984).
  31. ↑ 'Bell, 535 U.S. at 697.
  32. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 699.
  33. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 699–701.
  34. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 702.
  35. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 706–12 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  36. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 713–14 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  37. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 714–15 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  38. ↑ Bell, 535 U.S. at 717–19 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  39. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 463 (2009) (citing Cone v. Bell, 359 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2004).
  40. ↑ Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447, 452–458 (2005) (per curiam).
  41. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. at 463.
  42. ↑ See Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
  43. ↑ Cone v. Bell , 492F.3d743 (6th Cir.2007).
  44. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 492 F.3d at 753.
  45. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 492 F.3d at 756.
  46. ↑ 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)).
  47. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. at 476.
  48. ↑ Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. at 471.
  49. ↑ Justin Rand, Pro Se Paternalism: The Contractual, Practical, and Behavioral Cases for Automatic Reversal, 163 U. Penn. L. Rev. 283, 292–93 (2014).
  50. ↑ Jennifer Williams, Criminal Law—The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel—The Supreme Court Minimizes the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel by Maximizing the Deference Awarded to Barely Competent Defense Attorneys. Florida v. Nixon, 125 S. Ct. 551 (2004)., 28 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 149, 170 (2005).
  51. ↑ David A. Moran, Don't Worry, I'll Be Right Back: Temporary Absences of Counsel During Criminal Trials and the Rule of Automatic Reversal, 85 Neb. L. Rev. 186, 205–06 (2006).
  52. ↑ Robert J. Nolan, Prejudice Presumed: The Decision to Concede Guilt to Lesser Offenses during Opening Statements, 55 Hastings L.J. 965, 972–73 (2004).
  53. ↑ Marc L. Gouthro, Constitutional Law – When Controversial Trial Tactics Satisfy a Defendat's Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel, 37 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 219, 224 (2004).
  54. ↑ Stuart E. Walker, "What We Meant Was . . ." The Supreme Court Clarifies Two Ineffective Assistance Cases in Bell v. Cone, 54 Mercer L. Rev. 1271, 1288 (2003).
  55. ↑ Wayne M. Helge, Know Your Client: The Mundane Case of Wiggins v. Smith, 10 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 581, 594 (2005).
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.