Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 390.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 220 (2010) 

229 

Alito, J., dissenting 

F. 3d 923, 936 (CA11 2009).  While it is true that the ﬁrst of 
these grounds is inconsistent with Cone v.  Bell, 556 U. S. 449, 
466–467  (2009),  there  is  no  basis  for  vacating  the  decision 
below unless some recent authority or development provides 
a  basis  for  reconsideration  of  the  second  ground  as  well. 
But  the  per  curiam  identiﬁes  no  such  authority.  Instead, 
the  per  curiam  uses  Cone  as  a  vehicle  for  suggesting  that 
the  Court  of  Appeals  should  reconsider  its  decision  on  the 
merits of petitioner’s claim. 

In order to defend this disposition, the per curiam refuses 
to credit the Court of Appeals’ explanation of the basis of its 
decision.  The Court of Appeals twice stated in unequivocal 
terms that its holding on the merits of petitioner’s claim was 
independent  of  its holding  on  the  question of  procedural  de­
fault.  See  554  F.  3d,  at  937–938  (“[E]ven  if  these  claims 
were properly before us on habeas review, we would not dis­
turb  the  Georgia  Supreme  Court’s  conclusion  on  the  merits 
of  these  claims”);  id.,  at  936  (“Even  if  we  assume  that  Wel­
lons’s misconduct claims are not procedurally barred, they do 
not  entitle  Wellons  to  habeas  relief ”).  But  the  per  curiam 
states that the Court of Appeals’ consideration of the merits 
“may  well  have  turned  on  the  District  Court’s  ﬁnding  of  a 
procedural  bar”  and  that  “we  cannot  be  sure  that  [the  pan­
el’s]  reasoning  really  was  independent  of  the  Cone  error.” 
Ante, at 222, 224. 

Even  worse,  the  per  curiam  unjustiﬁably  suggests  that 
the Court of Appeals gave at most only “perfunctory consid­
eration”  to  petitioner’s  claim  that  he  was  entitled  to  an  evi­
dentiary hearing and may not have “carefully reviewed” the 
relevant facts.  Ante, at 220, 222.  The majority may not be 
satisﬁed  with  the  Court  of  Appeals’  discussion,  but  the  ma­
jority has no good reason for suggesting that the lower court 
did not give the issue careful consideration. 

The  District  Court  refused  petitioner’s  discovery  request 
on the ground that petitioner did not make a sufﬁcient show­
ing  to  warrant  interrogation  of  the  jurors.  As  the  detailed