Citation network
Bell Vs. Cone
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 28, 2002
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 685 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Bell, Warden V. ConeSearch
-
counsel's performance within the permissible range of competency under the attorney-performance standard of Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
that respondent suffered a Sixth Amendment violation for which prejudice should be presumed under United States v. CronicSearch
-
or if it decides a case differently than this Court has done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
other specific attorney errors subject to Strickland's performance and prejudice components. See, e. g., Darden v. WainwrightSearch
-
his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing under principles announced in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 668 (1984). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that United States v. CronicSearch
-
enough to outweigh them. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed respondent's convictions and sentence on appeal, State v. ConeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the Tennessee Criminal Court rejected this contention. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Cone v. StateSearch
-
the court concluded that his performance was within the permissible range of competency, citing Baxter v. RoseSearch
-
a decision the Tennessee Supreme Court deems to have announced the same attorney performance standard as Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 668 (1984). See, e. g., State v. BurnsSearch
-
at 357358. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied respondent permission to appeal, and we denied further review, Cone v. TennesseeSearch
-
his second application for state postconviction relief was dismissed, respondent sought a federal writ 1 See Cone v. StateSearch
-
held that respondent suffered a Sixth Amendment violation for which prejudice should be presumed under United States v. CronicSearch
-
and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law. See Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
id., at 659, 662, a phrase we used 696 in Hamilton v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 52 , 54 (1961), and White v. MarylandSearch
-
Cronic, supra, at 659. Finally, we said that in cases like Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Brief for Respondent 26. We disagree. When we 3 In a footnote, we also cited other cases besides Hamilton v. AlabamaSearch
-
and White v. MarylandSearch
-
criminal defendants who had actually or constructively been denied counsel by government action. See United States v. CronicSearch
-
U. S. 648 , 659, n. 25 (1984) (citing Geders v. UnitedSearch
-
Herring v. NewSearch
-
id., at 190. 698 land's performance and prejudice components. In Darden v. WainwrightSearch
-
that counsel was ineffective for failing to put on any mitigating evidence at a capital sentencing hearing. In Burger v. KempSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Michel v. LouisianaSearch
-
that the prosecution might elicit information about respondent's criminal history.5 5 Respondent cites Cozzolino v. StateSearch
-
of it. I don't believe that I understood the necessity ... of perhaps producing 5Her comments refer to Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
deficient, this would be the sort of strategic choice about which counsel would be owed deference under Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
id., at 103, because the State Supreme Court found any error concerning the aggravators to be harmless, State v. ConeSearch
-
courts did not have the benefit of evidence concerning Dice's mental health, it appears from Dice's 14 Cf. Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
quoting California v. BrownSearch
-
U. S. 538 , 545 (1987) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring))). 15 Cf. Herring v. NewSearch
-
Her ring v. NewSearch
-
within the meaning of Cronic. We recognized the importance of the exercise of such judgment in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
available mitigation evidence and fail to make a closing argument asking to spare the defendant's life. See Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
and Darden v. WainwrightSearch
-
both the importance of qualified counsel in death cases, and the frequent lack thereof. See, e. g., McFarland v. ScottSearch
-
Syllabus Bell, Warden V. ConeSearch
-
of Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial