Gary Bradford Cone v. Ricky Bell, Warden (556 U.S. 449)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 28, 2009 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 556 U.S. 449 · 129 S. Ct. 1769
- Decided
- April 28, 2009
- Term
- October Term 2008
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. The right to a fair trial, guaranteed to state criminal defendants by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, imposes on States certain duties consistent with their sovereign obligation to ensure “that ‘justice shall be done’” in all criminal prosecutions. United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97, 111 (1976) (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88 (1935)). In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), we held that when a State suppresses evidence favorable to an accused that is material to guilt or to punishment, the State violates the defendant’s right to due process, “irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id., at 87. In this case, Gary Cone, a Vietnam veteran sentenced to death, contends that the State of Tennessee violated his right to due process by suppressing witness statements and police reports that would have corroborated his trial defense and bolstered his case in mitigation of the death penalty. At his trial in 1982, Cone asserted an insanity defense, contending that he had killed two people while suffering from acute amphetamine psychosis, a disorder caused by drug addiction. The State of Tennessee discredited that defense, alleging that Cone’s drug addiction was “ ‘baloney.’ ” 492 F. 3d 743, 760 (CA6 2007) (Merritt, J., dissenting). Ten years later, Cone learned that…
Excerpt of a 54,011-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.