Bell v. Cone
535 U.S. 685 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on specific attorney errors, such as failing to present mitigating evidence or waiving closing argument at sentencing, it is governed by the two-prong performance-and-prejudice test of Strickland v. Washington. The presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic applies only when counsel's failure is complete, such as a total absence of counsel or an entire failure to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing.
Facts:
- In August 1980, Gary Cone robbed a jewelry store in Memphis, Tennessee.
- Cone fled from police in a high-speed chase, during which he shot a police officer and a citizen, and attempted to shoot a car owner.
- After eluding police, Cone broke into the home of an elderly couple, Shipley and Cleopatra Todd.
- Cone killed the Todds by repeatedly beating them about the head with a blunt instrument.
- He ransacked the home and moved the victims' bodies to conceal them.
- Cone then fled to Florida, where he was arrested for a separate drugstore robbery.
- Following his arrest in Florida, Cone admitted to killing the Todds and shooting the police officer.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Cone was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and other offenses in the Criminal Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.
- Following a separate sentencing hearing, the jury sentenced Cone to death.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence on direct appeal.
- Cone filed a petition for state postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing, which a division of the Tennessee Criminal Court denied.
- The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal.
- Cone then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, which was denied.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment as to the death sentence, holding that Cone's counsel's failures triggered a presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic.
- The State, represented by Warden Bell, was granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence and waiver of closing argument during a capital sentencing hearing constitute a complete failure to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing, thereby triggering a presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. A defense counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence and waiver of closing argument at sentencing are specific, isolated errors that must be evaluated under the Strickland standard, not the Cronic presumption of prejudice. The Cronic standard applies only when counsel's failure is complete, such as when counsel is entirely absent or fails to oppose the prosecution throughout the proceeding as a whole. Here, counsel made an opening statement, cross-examined a state witness, and made successful objections, thus engaging in adversarial testing. The decisions not to present further mitigating evidence or to waive closing argument were tactical choices made to avoid damaging rebuttal from a highly effective prosecutor. Under Strickland's highly deferential standard, these choices were not objectively unreasonable, and therefore the state court's decision to deny relief was a reasonable application of federal law.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. Defense counsel's performance during the penalty phase constituted a complete failure to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, justifying a presumption of prejudice under Cronic. Counsel failed to interview potential mitigation witnesses, failed to introduce available mitigating evidence (such as Cone's military service, family testimony, and a letter of forgiveness from a victim's sister), and made no closing argument or plea for his client's life. These omissions were not a result of strategy but of counsel's expressed hopelessness, his misunderstanding of the penalty phase, and his fear of the prosecutor. This complete abdication of the advocate's role at the most critical stage of the trial resulted in a breakdown of the adversarial process, rendering the death sentence unreliable.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the application of the Cronic presumption of prejudice, reinforcing the primacy of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. By categorizing even major failures like waiving closing argument in a capital case as specific errors subject to Strickland, the Court makes it substantially more difficult for defendants to prevail without proving concrete prejudice. The ruling solidifies the 'strong presumption' that counsel's actions are tactical, giving broad deference to trial attorneys' decisions, even those that appear highly questionable in hindsight. This case effectively reserves Cronic for only the most extreme scenarios, such as the complete absence of counsel or an explicit refusal to participate in the proceedings.
