Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rule on Gary Bradford Cone's habeas corpus petition for the third time. Yet this time was not the charm for Cone — as it was the first time he lost before the Sixth. As Judge Ryan summarized for the court in Cone v. Bell:

In 1982, a Tennessee state court sentenced Gary Bradford Cone to death after convicting him of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of murder in the perpetration of a burglary, three counts of assault with intent to commit murder, and one count of robbery by use of deadly force. The jury found Cone had bludgeoned two elderly persons to death while hiding out after a robbery. The Tennessee courts upheld Cone's conviction and sentence on direct appeal and denied his petitions for post-conviction relief. Then, in 2000, Cone filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, which, in due course, was denied. He appealed.

We have now heard Cone's appeal three times because the United States Supreme Court has twice reversed our decisions granting relief. This third time around, Cone raises a number of claims, none of which, in our judgment, has merit. Therefore, we will affirm the district court's original judgment denying Cone's petition.

Given that this is a published opinion in a habeas case from the Sixth Circuit, it should be no surprise that the opinion was divided. Judge Merritt dissented, arguing that there were "at least three serious problems" in the case that would justify a remand to the District Court for further proceedings to consider the merits of some of Cone's claims.

UPDATE: Just to show that the Sixth Circuit is not the only federal appellate court to divide over habeas cases, check out the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Stevens v. McBride. (Link via Sentencing Law & Policy.)