October Term 2008 · Docket 07-1114

Does a state court's alternate holding bar federal habeas review of a Brady claim?

the side that brought the case argues the state court relied on federalism grounds. the opposing side claims the state court found no Brady violation on the merits.

Official caption
Cone v. Bell
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Goldstein argued two things are uncontested in the case.

    He stated the side that brought the case is on death row, not in solitary confinement.

    He described the dilemma the Court faces in disposing of the case.

    Chief Justice Roberts noted the state court opinion discussed federalism issues.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case concerns federal habeas corpus review. The core dispute is whether a state court's alternate holding prevents federal courts from reviewing a Brady claim. the side that brought the case seeks federal review of the claim. the opposing side argues the state court resolved the claim on the merits.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2008.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Supreme Court to review the Brady claim on the merits.

the opposing side wants the Supreme Court to affirm the lower court's conclusion that no Brady violation occurred.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the state court's alternate holding on federalism allows federal review of the Brady claim.

the opposing side argues the state court's holding that the documents were not Brady material resolves the claim on the merits.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked when the conviction and death sentence were pronounced.

Chief Justice Roberts asked why procedural issues are before the Court if the merits are resolved.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of federal habeas review. It determines when federal courts can examine state court decisions. The outcome affects the rights of death row inmates. It clarifies the relationship between state and federal courts in habeas cases.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON