Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 387.0

226 

WELLONS  v.  HALL 

Scalia, J., dissenting 

procuring  the  beneﬁt  of  the  lower  court’s  insight  before  we 
rule on the merits.”  Lawrence, supra, at 167. 

Unlike  Justice  Scalia,  post,  at  228,  we  do  not  believe 
that a “self-respecting” court of appeals would or should re­
spond  to  our  remand  order  with  a  “summary  reissuance”  of 
essentially  the  same  opinion,  absent  the  procedural  default 
discussion.  To the contrary, in light of our decision in Cone, 
we  assume  the  court  will  consider,  on  the  merits,  whether 
petitioner’s  allegations,  together  with  the  undisputed  facts, 
warrant discovery and an evidentiary hearing. 

The  petition  for  writ  of  certiorari  to  the  United  States 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Eleventh  Circuit  and  the  motion 
of  petitioner  for  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  are 
granted.  The  judgment  is  vacated,  and  the  case  is  re­
manded  to  the  Eleventh  Circuit  for  further  consideration  in 
light of Cone, 556 U. S., at 466–467. 

It is so ordered. 

Justice  Scalia,  with whom Justice  Thomas  joins, 

dissenting. 

Petitioner Marcus Wellons was convicted in Georgia state 
court  of  capital  murder  and  sentenced  to  death.  After  ex­
hausting  direct  appeal  and  state  postconviction  review,  he 
ﬁled  a  petition  for  habeas  corpus  in  federal  court  under  28 
U. S. C.  § 2254.  Wellons  claims,  among  other  things,  that 
misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  trial  judge,  jurors,  and  court 
bailiff  deprived  him  of  a  fair  trial.  The  District  Court  de­
nied relief, and the Eleventh Circuit afﬁrmed. 

Today the Court grants Wellons’ petition for certiorari, va­
cates  the  judgment  of  the  Eleventh  Circuit,  and  remands 
(GVRs)  in  light  of  Cone  v.  Bell,  556  U. S.  449  (2009).  The 
Eleventh Circuit concluded that Wellons’ claims were proce­
durally barred because the state postconviction court, noting 
that  the  State  Supreme  Court  had  rejected  them  on  direct 
appeal, held the claims were res judicata.  See 554 F. 3d 923, 
936,  and  n.  6  (2009).  This  was  error  under  Cone,  see  556