Citation network
Cone Vs. Bell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 28, 2009
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Cone V. BellSearch
-
Later, in a second petition for state postconviction relief, Cone raised the claim that the State had violated Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
in part and dissenting in part. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Cone v. BellSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Cone V. BellSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-1114 Gary Bradford Cone, Petitioner V. RickySearch
-
in all criminal prosecutions. United States v. AgursSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 97 , 111 (1976) (quoting Berger v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 295 U. S. 78 , 88 (1935)). In Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
s claims, and affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. ConeSearch
-
the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of that petition in 1987. Cone v. StateSearch
-
Order Dismissing Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in Cone v. StateSearch
-
s file in his case. See Capital Case Resource Center of Tenn., Inc. v. WoodallSearch
-
the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Cone v. StateSearch
-
added). Cone unsuccessfully petitioned for review in the Tennessee Supreme Court, and we denied certiorari. Cone v. TennesseeSearch
-
procedurally defaulted his Brady claim and had failed to show cause and prejudice to overcome the default. Cone v. BellSearch
-
within the meaning of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See Bell v. ConeSearch
-
sentencing hearing, this time based on the purported invalidity of an aggravating circumstance found by the jury. Cone v. BellSearch
-
relying in part on the deferential standard that governs our review of state-court decisions under AEDPA. See Bell v. ConeSearch
-
Lee , 534 U. S., at 375 (quoting Douglas v. AlabamaSearch
-
s claim on the ground that it has done so already, it creates no bar to federal habeas review. In Ylst v. NunnemakerSearch
-
therefore, it is not defaulted. We turn now to the merits of that claim. v. AlthoughSearch
-
to due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Brady , 373 U. S., at 87. In United States v. BagleySearch
-
accord, Banks v. DretkeSearch
-
d). Instead, the claim is reviewed de novo . See, e.g. , Rompilla v. BeardSearch
-
U. S. 374 , 390 (2005) ( de novo review where state courts did not reach prejudice prong under Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
the victim and being present at the murder but testified that his accomplice had actually strangled the victim. Brady v. StateSearch
-
Graham v. StateSearch
-
i)(7). State v. ConeSearch
-
b)(1). Footnote 9 See Swanson v. StateSearch
-
s successive rejection of a federal claim does not bar federal habeas review. See, e.g. , Page v. FrankSearch
-
Brecheen v. ReynoldsSearch
-
Bennett v. WhitleySearch
-
Silverstein v. HendersonSearch
-
F. 2d 361, 368 (CA2 1983). See also Lambright v. StewartSearch
-
Cone v. StateSearch
-
sentence, it is appropriate for the District Court, rather than this Court, to do so in the first instance. Cone v. BellSearch
-
s decision is grounded in unusual facts that necessarily limit its reach. When issues under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
When it comes to that claim, the Court specifies that the appropriate legal standard is the one we set forth in Kyles v. WhitleySearch
-
s passing citation of them should not be taken to suggest otherwise. See ante , at 21, n. 15. Cone v. BellSearch
-
Thomas, J., Dissenting Cone V. BellSearch
-
s argument that his guilty verdict was secured in violation of his rights under Brady v. MarylandSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial