Cone v. Bell Reply Brief
In a posting in SCOTUSBlog, Lecturer in Law Thomas C. Goldstein credits the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic for preparing a brief in Cone v. Bell:
Today we’re filing our merits reply brief in Cone v. Bell, which I’ll argue next Tuesday. The case involves a question of procedural default on habeas corpus and a claim under Brady v. Maryland. The other briefs in the case — including the State’s merits brief — are available over at SCOTUSwiki. The Stanford Law School clinic team members are Ruthie Zemel, Jessica Oats, and David Muraskin. Our co-counsel Paul Bottei also worked closely with us.