Case Status
5 results
BELL, WARDEN v. CONE, GARY B. (26903)
Order dated: 12/10/01Docket number: 01-400
Action:
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
BELL, WARDEN v. CONE, GARY B. (26903)
Order dated: 01/22/02Docket number: 01-400
Action:
The motion for appointment of counsel is granted and it is ordered that Robert L. Hutton, Esquire, of Memphis, Tennessee, is appointed to serve as counsel for the respondent in this case.
BELL, WARDEN v. CONE, GARY B. (26903)
Order dated: 03/04/02Docket number: 01-400
Action:
The motions of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument are granted.
BELL, WARDEN v. CONE, GARY B. (26903)
Order dated: 08/05/02Docket number: 01-400
Action:
The petitions for rehearing are denied.
BELL, WARDEN v. CONE, GARY B. (26903)
Order dated: 10/07/02Docket number: 01-400
Action:
The motion of respondent to compensate appointed counsel at revised statutory rate and to abolish Court imposed cap on attorney's fees is denied.
A description of the questions presented by the case has been prepared:
1. By applying a de novo standard of review to a habeas petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, does the court of appeals' ruling conflict with Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.C. 2254 (d)(1) for granting habeas corpus relief to state prisoners on claims that have been previously adjudicated on the merits in state court? 2. May a federal court of appeals bypass the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and presume prejudice under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), to find a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, where defense counsel conducts a thorough pre-trial investigation, presents lay and expert witness testimony in support of a mental health defense at trial, conducts direct and cross examination, and addresses the jury at both the guilt and sentencing phase on behalf of his client, and where the state and district courts have previously determined that the defendant demonstrated no actual prejudice from any deficiencies identified in the attorney's performance?
An opinion has been handed down: