Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 393.0

232 

WELLONS  v.  HALL 

Alito, J., dissenting 

935 (“When deciding whether to grant a federal habeas peti­
tioner’s  request  for  an  evidentiary  hearing,  ‘a  federal  court 
must consider whether such a hearing could enable an appli­
cant to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which, if true, 
would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief ’ ” (quoting 
Schriro v.  Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465, 474 (2007))). 

I agree with the Court that the strange and tasteless gifts 
that were given to the trial judge and bailiff are facially trou­
bling,  and  I  am  certainly  not  prepared  at  this  point  to  say 
that  the  decision  below  on  the  discovery  issue  was  correct. 
But unlike the Court, I do not think it is proper for us to use 
a  GVR  to  address  this  matter.  The  lower  courts  have  de­
cided  the  discovery  issue,  and  now  this  Court  has  two  op­
tions.  First, if we wish to review the question whether peti­
tioner  made  a  sufﬁcient  showing  to  justify  interrogation  of 
the jurors,  we should grant the  petition for a writ  of certio­
rari and decide that question.  Second, if we do not wish to 
tackle  that  fact-bound  question,  we  should  deny  review  or 
GVR in light of a recent authority or development that casts 
doubt on the judgment of the court below.  What the Court 
has done—using a GVR as a vehicle for urging the Court of 
Appeals  to  reconsider  its  holding  on  a  question  that  is  en­
tirely independent of the ground for the GVR—is extraordi­
nary and, in my view, improper.