Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 391

230 

WELLONS  v.  HALL 

Alito, J., dissenting 

opinion of the District Court reveals, the state habeas judge 
allowed petitioner’s attorneys to contact all of the jurors and 
relevant court personnel; the attorneys succeeded in contact­
ing  all  but  1  of  the  jurors;  6  of  the  11  jurors  who  were  con­
tacted, as well as the bailiffs and court reporter, were inter­
viewed; and the attorneys made a proffer of the information 
provided  by  these  interviewees.1  There  is  no  suggestion 
that the attorneys were restricted in the questions that they 
were permitted to ask the  interviewees, and it appears that 
the jurors who were interviewed spoke freely, even discuss­
ing  their  understanding  of  the  judge’s  instructions  on  the 
law and the jury’s deliberations.2  Cf. Fed. Rule Evid. 606(b). 
Interestingly, the proffer does not reﬂect that the attorneys 
asked  any  of  the  jurors  what  would  appear  to  be  the  most 
critical  question,  namely,  why  the  strange  gifts  were  given 
to  the  judge  or  the  bailiff.3  See  App.  C  to  Pet.  for  Cert. 

1 As  the  District  Court  observed,  “[p]etitioner’s  state  habeas  corpus 
counsel contacted all but one of the jurors seeking their comments.”  App. 
C  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  34.  The  proffer  shows  that  six  jurors  were  inter­
viewed:  DeArmond,  id.,  at  35,  Henry,  ibid.,  Givhan,  id.,  at  36,  Humphrey, 
id., at 37, Moore, ibid., and Smith, ibid.  The Court’s description of some 
of  the  matters  that  the  jurors  mentioned  during  the  interview  conﬁrms 
that these jurors “ ‘spoke freely.’ ”  See ante, at 221–222, n. 1. 

2 The  per  curiam  assumes  that  the  jurors  who  were  interviewed  must 
have  spoken  only  “in  the  briefest  of  terms”  because  “ ‘everything  that 
Petitioner . . . learned’ ” “ﬁlled only a few sheets of paper.”  Ante, at 222, 
n.  1.  The  mere  fact  that  the  unsworn  proffer  submitted  by  petitioner’s 
state  habeas  counsel  consisted  of  four  pages,  see  App.  C  to  Pet.  for  Cert. 
35–38, does not seem to me to provide a sufﬁcient basis for concluding that 
the jurors interviewed spoke only “in the briefest of terms.”  The length 
of  the  proffer  is  equally  consistent  with  the  possibility  that  the  jurors 
interviewed spoke  at length  but did  not supply  information that  petition­
er’s counsel deemed helpful to his case. 

3 The main reason for the interviews was to inquire about the gifts, and 
the  proffer  shows  that  the  jurors  who  were  interviewed  discussed  this 
matter.  See,  e. g.,  id.,  at  35  (a  juror  “stated  that  ‘we,’  the  jurors  gave  a 
pair  of  chocolate  breasts  to  the  bailiff  and  the  chocolate  penis  just  fol­
lowed”);  ibid.  (a  juror  “stated  that  some  of  the  jurors  decided  to  send  a 
pair  of  edible chocolate  breasts  to  one of  the  female  bailiffs and  an  edible