Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Bell v. Cone

Supreme Court of the United States · 2002 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureIneffective Assistance of CounselHabeas CorpusCapital SentencingAEDPA28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)StricklandCronic

Facts

Cone was convicted of murdering an elderly couple and sentenced to death in Tennessee. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel referred in opening statement to mitigating evidence already introduced during the guilt phase, cross-examined a State witness to bring out that Cone had received a Bronze Star, presented no additional mitigation witnesses, and waived final closing argument, which prevented the lead prosecutor from delivering rebuttal. In state postconviction proceedings, Cone argued that counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to present mitigating evidence and for waiving final argument. The Tennessee courts rejected that claim under the state standard they treated as equivalent to Strickland.

Issue

Whether Cone's sentencing-phase ineffective-assistance claim was governed by United States v. Cronic, so that prejudice should be presumed, rather than by Strickland v. Washington. If Strickland governed, whether the Tennessee court's rejection of the claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1).

Rule

Under AEDPA, a federal habeas court may grant relief only if the state-court decision is contrary to, or an objectively unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. Strickland governs ordinary ineffective-assistance claims and requires deficient performance plus prejudice. Cronic's presumed-prejudice rule applies only in limited circumstances, including when counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing; failure at specific points in the proceeding does not suffice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a capital sentencing hearing in Phoenix, defense lawyer Mara Levin gave an opening asking for mercy, cross-examined the State's records witness about the defendant's military commendation, objected to one exhibit, presented no additional mitigation witnesses, and waived closing argument to prevent the lead prosecutor from giving rebuttal. The Arizona courts rejected the ineffective-assistance claim under the ordinary deficiency-and-prejudice framework.

On federal habeas, the prisoner argues that prejudice must be presumed because counsel failed to make a real case for life. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. Bell v. Cone holds that Cronic's presumed-prejudice rule is limited. It applies only when counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing, not when counsel allegedly errs at specific points such as failing to present more mitigation or waiving final argument. Because counsel here participated in the proceeding and challenged the State in some respects, Strickland governs.