Criminal Law
11/4/2009 5:24:17 PM EST
Professor Mark Godsey on Cone v. Bell
On April 28, 2009, the United States Supreme Court held in Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769 (U.S. 2009) that a habeas corpus claim for a Tennessee death row inmate is not barred from federal review, creating precedent that could bring hope to inmates in similar circumstances who fear procedural bar in federal court. In this Analysis, Mark Godsey examines Cone and offers tips to practitioners seeking federal habeas review. He writes:
Armed with . . . new information, Petitioner filed a habeas in state court. Petitioner's Brady claim was denied on the ground that it had been fully litigated and resolved against the defendant on direct appeal following his conviction. Petitioner had in fact had Brady claims resolved against him previously on direct appeal. However, the specific Brady claim that Petitioner raised based on the [new] drug-use documents were not raised previously because those documents had not been made available to him until more recently. Thus, although a generic Brady claim had been decided against Petitioner, for which he had no evidentiary support at the time, his new Brady claim was based on the newly discovered evidence and had not been specifically litigated. The state courts in Tennessee twice rejected Petitioner's Brady claim on this procedural ground, claiming that Petitioner was simply putting fresh coats of paint on arguments he had previously raised and had rejected.
Petitioner then took his claim to federal court, and the state switched tactics. The state argued in federal court that Petitioner had waived his claim because it had never properly been raised before the state courts. The state failed to disclose in federal court that it had taken a contrary position in state court. At the federal level, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit took the position that Petitioner's claim was procedurally barred, reasoning that the state court's decision that the claim had been previously determined against Petitioner--even if incorrect--amounted to an adequate and independent state law ground that bars federal review.
. . . .
Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, held that neither prior determination nor waiver provides an independent state ground for denying Petitioner's claim under the circumstances of this case. Only when a claim is denied at the state level on a ground that is both independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment is a Petitioner precluded from bringing his claim in federal court. One example of this might be when an inmate denies the state of the chance to correct its own errors by failing to properly raise the relevant issues in state court.
(citations omitted)
| Rate this article: |
| Low | | High |
or login to post comments.