There is limited news coverage today of the Supreme Court's decision yesterday to hear two Tennessee death penalty cases in its next term. Each raises a significant issue for capital litigation.
In the New York Times, Adam Liptak reports, "Death Row Inmate's Case Gets 3rd Hearing."
The central issue in the case, Cone v. Bell, No. 07-1114, is whether and when federal courts are free to reconsider such state court rulings. Dissenting from a ruling last year against Mr. Cone by a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit, Judge Gilbert S. Merritt wrote that Mr. Cone deserved to have at least one court consider the impact of the new evidence. “No court, state or federal, has as yet reviewed the claim on the merits,” Judge Merritt wrote.
Three months later, dissenting on behalf of himself and six other judges from the full Sixth Circuit’s decision not to revisit the case, Judge Merritt wrote: “Having been twice reversed in the Supreme Court, we should not err again by failing to insure that the State’s prosecutorial misconduct in concealing exculpatory evidence is considered on the merits.”
Debra Cassens Weiss writes, "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Death-Row Inmate’s Case for Third Time," for the ABA Journal.
The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled against Tennessee death-row inmate Gary Cone. Now the justices will decide whether federal courts may consider his claim that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.
Cone had claimed he was suffering from an amphetamine psychosis when he killed a Memphis couple following a two-day crime spree, the New York Times reports. A prosecutor had called the assertion “baloney” and the Tennessee Supreme Court said there was no evidence to support the claim when it affirmed the conviction.
But the prosecution had not disclosed previous police reports that called Cone a heavy drug user and said he looked frenzied after the crime.
The petition for certiorari (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog) says one of the issues is whether a federal habeas court is powerless to recognize that a state court erred in holding Cone’s claim could not be reviewed under state law.
Adam Liptak also noted the other capital issue that the Court agreed to examine in Harbison v. Bell.
The Supreme Court also agreed on Monday to hear an appeal from another Tennessee death row inmate, to resolve an issue that has divided federal appeals courts: Must the federal government provide lawyers to poor people on death row seeking clemency?
The case, Harbison v. Bell, No. 07-8521, turns on the proper interpretation of a federal law that provides lawyers to indigent death row inmates convicted in state court who challenge their death sentences in federal court. The law, part of the Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005, says that such lawyers are to represent their clients in “all available post-conviction process,” including “proceedings for executive or other clemency.”
The solicitor general’s office, representing the federal government, had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case to resolve the conflict among the appeals courts but said the law applied only to federal proceedings.
Yesterday's coverage is here. There are ScotusWiki pages for both Cone v. Bell and Harbison v. Bell.
Comments