Document: MARCUS A. WELLONS v. HILTON HALL, WARDEN No. 09-5731. Supreme Court of United States. Decided January 19, 2010. PER CURIAM. From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose deciding whether a defendant shall be put death must with dignity and respect. The disturbing facts this case raise serious questions concerning conduct trial, petition raises question about Appeals carefully reviewed those before addressing petitioner's constitutional claims. We know that committed same procedural error we corrected in Cone Bell, 556 U.S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 17-18). do not how court would have ruled if it had benefit our decision case. Petitioner Marcus Wellons was convicted Georgia state rape murder sentenced death. Although trial looked typical, there were unusual events going on behind scenes. Only after did defense counsel learn been unreported ex parte contacts between jury judge, jurors bailiff planned reunion, "either during or immediately following penalty phase, some members gave judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia female breasts," 554 F.3d 923, 930 (CA11 2009). reported any defense. Neither nor has ascertained exactly what went capital prompted such "gifts." repeatedly tried, both federal court, find out occurred, but he found himself caught morass: He raised issue direct appeal constrained by nonexistent record, State affirmed his conviction sentence. State, 266 Ga. 77, 88, 463 S.E.2d 868, 880 (1995). sought habeas relief moved develop evidence. But held matter decided thus res judicata. See F. 3d, 932. again petition, seeking discovery an evidentiary hearing. District "concluded Wellons' claims . procedurally barred, accordingly denied motion hearing these claims." Id., 933.[1] Before Eleventh Circuit, "argue[d] district erred denying motions juror, misconduct because they are barred." 935. disagreed, holding barred. Ibid. As dissenting colleagues acknowledge, post, 1 (opinion SCALIA, J.); ALITO, J.), Circuit's under Cone, U. S., "When declines review merits claim ground done so already, creates no bar review." 17). Both opinions assume "the which throws light does affect outcome" Circuit also petitioner entitled merits." Post, 1-2 J.). Having bar, however, need address otherwise question, most, perfunctory consideration may well turned Court's finding bar. appealed denial "his hearing," 935, purport all.[2] stated only "[e]ven Wellons's entitle relief." 936 (emphasis added). This opaque statement appears ultimate form new allegations, combined learned, him sought. reasoning suggest otherwise. observed "grounded speculation meaning underlying jurors' `gifts'" surmise attached their passive receipt gifts." likewise indicates existing inappropriate, should denied. After all, hearing, able present more than "speculation" "surmise." pointed court's appeal, see id., 937, "[i]n evidence presented Court," ibid. This, too, is typical reviewing relief, hearing.[3] Moreover, even assuming intended cannot sure its really independent error. fact rested "surmise" due absence part based And doubt necessarily relied very holes record trying fill. Our allege "degrad[ing]. traditional requirements GVR." 2 4 standard order granting certiorari, vacating judgment below, remanding (GVR) remains always been: A GVR appropriate when "intervening developments reveal reasonable probability below rests upon premise lower reject given opportunity further consideration, where redetermination determine matter. Lawrence Chater, 516 163, 167 (1996) (per curiam). already discussed, is, least, "reasonable probability," ibid., case, "redetermination outcome," 167; cf. Williams Taylor, 529 420, 442 (2000) (holding several "omissions whole disclose hearing"); Smith Phillips, 455 209, 215 (1982) ("This long remedy allegations juror partiality prove actual bias"). opinion ambiguous significant respects. It highly inappropriate away ambiguity respondent's favor. That especially fairness trial. strong then "should summarily reverse set argument." 4-5 explained, "a conserves scarce resources "assists flagging particular appear fully considered," procuring insight rule Lawrence, supra, 167. Unlike JUSTICE 3, believe "self-respecting" appeals respond remand "summary reissuance" essentially opinion, absent default discussion. To contrary, will consider, merits, together undisputed facts, warrant writ certiorari States leave proceed forma pauperis granted. vacated, remanded whom THOMAS joins, dissenting. exhausting postconviction review, filed corpus 28 C. §2254. claims, among other things, jurors, deprived fair affirmed. Today grants vacates remands ("GVRs") (2009). concluded barred post-conviction noting rejected them 936, n. 6 - 17-18), respondent recognizes; indeed, recognized abrogation point, Owen Secretary Dept. Corrections, 568 894, 915, 23, But, ALITO's dissent demonstrates, p. (like Court) merits. 936-938. Thus GVRs though outcome. previously asserted power whenever outcome litigation." I protested flabby standard, 190-191 (SCALIA, J., dissenting), today outdoes itself. "rest upon" objectionable faulty premise, independently supported groundsso assuredly "determine "revise correct error," into void suspicion," 190 (same) (internal quotation marks alteration omitted), now become send back re-do. authority decree that. If thinks wrong, argument; otherwise, stand. true (as evidently believes) required resolving question. regard reversed rather "in Bell"a disposition providing hint want consider systematic degradation spawned series dispositions, including government can try less extravagant argument remand, Department Interior South Dakota, 519 919, 921 nothing, Youngblood West Virginia, 547 867, 872 (2006) (same), newly-minted Summary Remand More Extensive Opinion Requested (SRMEOPR), Webster Cooper, 558 3). adds another beast growing menagerie: SRIE, Inconsequential Erroror, it, SRTAEH, Think About Evidentiary Hearing. disrespects judges Courts Appeals, who appointed confirmed are, vacate authorized judgments inconsequential imperfection opinionas schoolmasters grading homework. An appropriately self-respecting response today's summary vacatur reissuance minus discussion Cone. serve minimizing delay justice achieves (Wellons outlived victim 20 years; 1989). THE CHIEF represents misuse grant, vacate, (GVR). plainly two grounds: first, defaulted bailiff, relationship impaired right and, second, failed While first grounds inconsistent basis unless recent development provides reconsideration second well. per curiam identifies authority. Instead, uses vehicle suggesting reconsider claim. In defend disposition, refuses credit Appeals' explanation decision. twice unequivocal terms default. 937-938 ("[E]ven properly us disturb conclusion claims"); ("Even relief"). states "may bar" "we [the panel's] error." Ante, 5. Even worse, unjustifiably suggests most "perfunctory consideration" "carefully reviewed" relevant facts. 1. majority satisfied discussion, good reason give careful consideration. refused request make sufficient showing interrogation jurors. detailed reveals, allowed attorneys contact all personnel; succeeded contacting jurors; 11 contacted, bailiffs reporter, interviewed; made proffer information provided interviewees.[1] There suggestion restricted permitted ask interviewees, interviewed spoke freely, discussing understanding judge's instructions law jury's deliberations.[2] Cf. Fed. Rule Evid. 606(b). Interestingly, reflect asked critical namely, why strange gifts bailiff.[3] App. C Pet. Cert. 34-38. answers favorable position provided, one expect proffer. examining attorneys, submission justify formal discovery. With respect describes "unreported judge," ante, 1which apparently consisted brief exchange words occurred entered room restaurant diningthe "nothing slightest indication anything simple greeting occurred," 43. ended, stressed "inappropriate" represented "an display poor taste context proceeding grave trial," noted proffered personnel said substantiated assertion existed jury," 44. reading unlikely yield substantiating 935 (quoting Schriro Landrigan, 550 465, 474 (2007) ("When grant `a could enable applicant petition's factual which, true, relief'")). agree tasteless facially troubling, am certainly prepared point say correct. unlike Court, think proper use courts issue, options. First, wish decide Second, tackle fact-bound deny casts below. What doneusing urging entirely GVRis extraordinary my view, improper. NOTES [1] alternatively declined permit enough bias misconduct. ALITO wrongly reached assembled "contacting jurors," many "spoke freely." (dissenting opinion). apart from interviews informal unsworn, shed almost occurred. allegedly "gave penis 36, "hostile talk," 37; "refused talk 36; "did case," "conferr[ed]" wife "slammed bolted door," Of willing admitted being "concerned she might something used mistrial," 35, none knowing selected "gifts," 35-36, 37. (Implausibly, lawyers bases appeared facts.) Rather, discussed matters briefest terms. All told, "everything learned," 38, filled few sheets paper, subjects discuss support view tainted For example, interviewee "was surprised" fellow her sister murdered man completed serving life 36. [2] explains length, 2-4, analysis little relevance alternative [3] asserts "stated default." question: what? hearing? Contrary colleagues, dispositive section began full page turn included sentence circumstances warranted. 934-935. Immediately quotes, panel explained "`if precludes hold hearing,'" reveals [Wellons'] "unequivocal" quotes preceded deference owed Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) "Georgia substance effect communication." 937. classic formulation relief. Indeed, bizarre defer state-court findings, without create findings erroneous. ever get hearing: So disprove through presentation evidence, AEDPA require crabbed illogical approach procedures, thought observed, "[p]etitioner's contacted comments." 34. shows six interviewed: DeArmond, Henry, Givhan, Humphrey, 37, Moore, Smith, description mentioned interview confirms 2, assumes spoken terms" "`everything Petitioner. learned'" "filled paper." mere unsworn submitted four pages, 35-38, seem me provide concluding terms." length equally consistent possibility supply deemed helpful main inquire gifts, See, e.g., 35 (a `we,' pair breasts just followed"); edible judge"); 37 "remembered giving judge"). Nevertheless, includes givennot know. (noting whose idea representation added)).

Category: 0