Opinion ID: 808801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ms. Beard

Text: Ms. Beard explained her evolving views of the death penalty as “Well, . . . several years back, [I] felt that maybe we did not have the right to make that decision on capital punishment. Since then, I think I have become more conservative, more law and order. . . [b]ut I still . . . am not a real strong believer in it.” [Resp’t Ex. 10 at 764] C. The Hesitant Caucasian Jurors Who Were Selected The Caucasian jurors, who Wellons claims the prosecution did not strike despite their hesitant answers regarding the death penalty, were more favorable to the prosecution because they did not have a favorable view of mental health defense. Juror DD stated that she had “mixed feelings” about the death penalty but “believe[d] in it in certain circumstances.” [Resp’t Ex. 10 at 837] However, she also “doubt[ed] that fifty percent of the people could be [rehabilitated].” [Resp’t 12 Case: 11-14935 Date Filed: 09/19/2012 Page: 13 of 28 Ex. 10 at 840–41]3 When asked if he could vote for the death penalty, Mr. Anderson stated “I think I could, yes.” [Resp’t Ex. 10 at 1095] He also stated that in some of the cases he heard about, he “really question[ed]” the defendant’s plea of insanity, but “couldn’t pass judgment over [those cases]” without knowing the facts. [Resp’t Ex. 10 at 1100] Juror PS unequivocally answered that he could equally consider the death penalty as well as life and return a verdict for the death penalty in open court. [Resp’t Ex. 10 at 1072] Juror PS also stated that he leaned more towards believing mental health defenses being a “cop-out” but would still fairly consider the evidence. [Resp’t. Ex. 10 at 1076] Although Juror MG stated that the death penalty weighed “heav[il]y on [her] heart,” [Resp’t Ex. 10 at 943] she described mental health defenses as “a bunch of bull.” [Resp’t Ex. 10 at 946] Considering this record, we cannot say that the Supreme Court of Georgia unreasonably applied constitutional law, especially given the highly deferential standard required by AEDPA. Jamerson, 410 F.3d at 687. The prosecution struck both Caucasian and African Americans for giving equivocal answers regarding the imposition of the death penalty. Furthermore, the few jurors that were hesitant about the death penalty but were not struck by the prosecution felt strongly that 3 We note that after Juror DD was selected, she admitted to the Judge and counsel that she did not think she could emotionally handle serving on the jury. The prosecution attempted to have her removed from the panel, but the defense objected. 13 Case: 11-14935 Date Filed: 09/19/2012 Page: 14 of 28 mental health defenses were questionable, which was favorable for the prosecution. Thus, it was also not unreasonable for the Georgia Supreme Court to find that Wellons did not prove purposeful discrimination by the state. Thus, we affirm the denial of habeas relief on this ground. IV. Alleged Juror, Bailiff, and Judicial Misconduct A. Background The Supreme Court vacated our prior opinion and remanded this case back to us, suggesting that “[t]he disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial.” Wellons 130 S. Ct. at 728. Consequently, we remanded the case back to the district court for discovery and new consideration of Wellons’s claims. On remand, the parties deposed ten jurors, the state court Judge who presided at the trial, some of the Judge’s staff, and individuals from the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office.4 The depositions focused on three major events: (1) the encounter between the Judge and the jury during dinner, (2) the jury’s gift to the Judge, and (3) the jury’s gift to Bailiff LP. We draw the remaining facts from the Joint Stipulation of Facts Obtained Through Discovery filed by the parties after discovery and the district court’s order below. 4 By the time discovery was conducted (about twenty years after the trial), two of the jurors and one of the bailiffs had passed away. 14 Case: 11-14935 Date Filed: 09/19/2012 Page: 15 of 28 During trial, a Major in the Sheriff’s Office was responsible for courtroom security and for the jury. The bailiffs who worked for the Judge assisted the Sheriff’s Office in supervising the jurors. During the guilt and penalty phases of the trial, the jury was sequestered at a hotel, and two bailiffs stayed with the jurors each night at the hotel. The jurors each had individual rooms without a television. The jurors were permitted to watch television in a common room, which a deputy sheriff controlled. The jurors were allowed to phone their families, but they did not have any visitation with family. Some of the jurors’ family members came to the trial and observed. The Major and at least two sheriff’s deputies accompanied the jurors to breakfast and dinner each day. Dinner was usually at a local restaurant chosen by the Major. Neither the Judge nor the Major have an independent memory of the instructions that they gave their employees regarding their conduct with this particular jury. The Judge and the Major generally instruct their bailiffs to not speak with the jurors except to determine if they need something. 1. The Encounter at the Restaurant During the trial, the Judge encountered the jury at dinner. Some of the jurors have no recollection of the encounter. The Judge, Bailiff LP, and most of the jurors testified that the Judge waived or nodded and made a brief comment. 15 Case: 11-14935 Date Filed: 09/19/2012 Page: 16 of 28 One juror recalls that the encounter occurred on the day the jurors saw the autopsy photos, which had upset some of the jurors, and that the Judge commented that she understood that the jurors were upset. 2. The Gift to the Judge Of the ten jurors that were deposed, four did not learn about the inappropriate gifts until 2010, and one was uncertain about when he first learned of the gifts. Juror MH admitted to giving the Judge white chocolate in the shape of a penis. She testified that she called her husband to request that her friend—who owned a confectionary shop—make chocolate turtles for the jury. When Juror MH received the box of turtles from her husband, Bailiff LP and Juror LH were present. The friend, in addition to the turtles, included the white chocolate penis as a gag gift to lighten things up. Juror MH also testified that the friend did not know the facts of the case. Juror MH recalls that Bailiff LP told her that the Judge wanted to see it. On the last day of the trial, Juror MH testified that she took the chocolate, which was in a box and inside a bag, to the jury room. Juror MH gave the gift to the Judge in the jury room, and the Judge slid the gift into her sleeve. Juror MH also states that she tried to keep the gift a secret from the rest of the jury members. Another juror has similar memories of the event, except that this juror does not 16 Case: 11-14935 Date Filed: 09/19/2012 Page: 17 of 28 recall how the Judge received the gift. Juror LH recalled that one of the other jurors knew someone who had a bakery and that some of the jurors wanted to have her bake something for the Judge. The jurors wanted to give a gift to the Judge because the Judge had been very good about making sure the jurors’ needs were met during the trial. Juror LH remembers that when the jurors were discussing what they could give to the Judge, they were in a silly mood. Juror LH testified that someone mentioned baking the Judge something in the shape of a penis, but Juror LH did not think any of the jurors would actually go through with it. Juror PS recalls hearing about penis-shaped chocolate candy in the jury room. He also recalls seeing a box in the jury room, but he did not see what was inside the box. Juror PS assumed it was the gag gift because he heard someone say “we got it.” He thought it was strange to give such a gift to the Judge. Juror PS remembers seeing the Judge with the box on “her desk in the courtroom” when the Judge thanked them for their service. Bailiff LP testified that Juror MH told her about the chocolate. The next morning, Bailiff LP told the Judge about the chocolate and the Judge replied, “weird.” Bailiff LP also remembers the jurors asking if she told the Judge about the chocolate. Bailiff LP replied that she told the Judge and that the Judge just 17 Case: 11-14935 Date Filed: 09/19/2012 Page: 18 of 28 shrugged her shoulders and laughed it off. Bailiff LP stated that the Judge did not ask to see the chocolate, and Bailiff LP testified that she did not tell the juror that the Judge requested to see the chocolate. Because Bailiff LP had to leave prior to the end of the trial to tend to her sick mother, she is not aware how the Judge received the gift. The Judge testified that she first knew of the gag gift when someone on the court staff gave it to her a day or two after the trial. She did not discuss the gift and did not show it to anyone. She did not report it to counsel for the state or the defense. She eventually threw it out. 3. The Gift to the Bailiff Bailiff LP received an inappropriate gift of white chocolate in the shape of female breasts from the jurors. Five of the jurors deposed knew nothing of the chocolate breasts until 2010, and one juror could not recall when he heard of the gift. After Bailiff LP returned from caring for her sick mother, the court clerk gave her a box containing white chocolate breasts monogrammed “[Bailiff’s first name]’s hooters.” Bailiff LP does not know who gave her the gift. She thinks that the gift may been prompted by a discussion at dinner between two of the younger male jurors. The two jurors were discussing how their grandmothers had ample 18 Case: 11-14935 Date Filed: 09/19/2012 Page: 19 of 28 chests and that when their grandmothers hugged them they felt they would be suffocated. Bailiff LP then joined the conversation by lamenting the fact that she would be remembered by her grandchildren for her ample chest. None of the male jurors deposed recalled this conversation. Several of the jurors deposed recall hearing about the chocolate breasts but did not recall ever seeing the gift. Juror MH, who gave the gag gift to the Judge, knew nothing of the gift to Bailiff LP until well after the trial. At some point after the trial, several of the jurors and their spouses had a reunion. No one discussed either of the gifts at the reunion. B. Analysis Wellons asserts that this misconduct denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial by an unbiased jury and an impartial judge. He cites several cases which call into question the impartiality of the jury and the judge. The Constitution affords defendants the right to an impartial jury and judge. Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 364, 87 S. Ct. 468, 470 (1966) (per curiam) (impartial jury); Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535, 47 S. Ct. 437, 445 (1927) (impartial judge). Due process requires “a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen.” 19 Case: 11-14935 Date Filed: 09/19/2012 Page: 20 of 28 Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S. Ct. 940, 946 (1982). Without condoning the regrettable behavior of either, we conclude that both the jury and the Judge remained impartial and unbiased throughout the trial.