Cone v. Bell (2008)
- Docket
- 07-1114
- Decided
- 2008-01-01
Summary
Question: 1) Is Mr. Cone entitled to federal habeas review of his claim that the state suppressed material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland ? 2) Is Mr. Cone's federal habeas corpus claim "procedurally defaulted" because it has been presented twice at the state court level? Conclusion: Yes and No. The Supreme Court held that the Tennessee state courts' rejection of Mr. Cone's Brady claim, that the state had suppressed material evidence at his trial, was improperly denied review during post-conviction proceedings and had not been procedurally defaulted. With Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the majority and joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer, the Court reasoned that Mr. Cone's Brady claim had in fact never been presented at the state court level and thus the Sixth Circuit erred in finding that Mr. Cone's claim had been defaulted for having been raised twice previously. Moreover, the Court reasoned that the documents withheld at Mr. Cone's trial were material to his sentencing and thus entitled him to federal habeas corpus review. Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote separately, concurring in the judgment. Justice Samuel A. Alito also wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. He agreed that Mr. Cone's case was properly remanded for further review. However, he disagreed that Mr. Cone properly preserved and exhausted his Brady claim at the state court level because Mr. Cone never raised that claim at the state court level. Rather, he argued Mr. Cone's claim was either "not exhausted" or was "procedurally defaulted", appropriate for the Sixth Circuit to review, not the federal district court. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin G. Scalia, dissented. He argued that Mr. Cone failed to prove that there was a "reasonable probability" that had the withheld evidence been disclosed at trial that his sentencing would have been different, and therefore his claim should not be granted federal habeas corpus review.