October Term 2001 · Docket 01-400
Did the state court correctly reject the ineffective assistance claim?
The dispute centers on whether a state court decision properly denied habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Michael Moore argued the state court lacked authority to grant habeas relief.
He stated the state court correctly identified the Strickland standard.
Mr. Hutton argued the core issue was the lawyer's failure to argue for life.
He described this failure as a total abdication of advocacy duties.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 7-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Ricky Bell argues his lawyer failed to present a case for life during the death penalty phase. Gary Cone argues the state court correctly rejected this claim under federal habeas standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 15-45
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 25, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 7-11
What each side wants
Bell wants the Supreme Court to confirm the lower federal court was right to grant relief.
Cone wants the Supreme Court to confirm the state court was right to deny relief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 15-45
What each side says
Bell argues his lawyer's failure to argue for life constituted a total abandonment of advocacy.
Cone argues the state court correctly applied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 15-45
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the first issue was resolved.
Justice Souter asked a follow-up question regarding the legal standard.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 7-11
Why it matters
This case defines the standard for reviewing state court decisions on ineffective assistance claims. It clarifies when federal courts can override state court judgments in capital cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 15-45
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 7-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 15-45
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.