WELLONS v. HALL, WARDEN
No. 09-5731
Supreme Court of the United States
January 19, 2010
558 U.S. 220
From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect. The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial, and this petition raises a serious question about whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed those facts before addressing petitioner‘s constitutional claims. We know that the Court of Appeals committed the same procedural error that we corrected in Cone v. Bell, 556 U. S. 449, 466-467 (2009). We do not know how the court would have ruled if it had the benefit of our decision in that case.
Petitioner Marcus Wellons was convicted in Georgia state court of rape and murder and sentenced to death. Although the trial looked typical, there were unusual events going on behind the scenes. Only after the trial did defense counsel
Neither Wellons nor any court has ascertained exactly what went on at this capital trial or what prompted such “gifts.” Wellons has repeatedly tried, in both state and federal court, to find out what occurred, but he has found himself caught in a procedural morass: He raised the issue on direct appeal but was constrained by the nonexistent record, and the State Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. Wellons v. State, 266 Ga. 77, 88, 463 S. E. 2d 868, 880 (1995). He sought state habeas relief and moved to develop evidence. But the court held that the matter had been decided on appeal and thus was res judicata. See 554 F. 3d, at 932. He raised the issue again in his federal habeas petition, seeking discovery and an evidentiary hearing. But the District Court “concluded that Wellons‘s claims . . . were procedurally barred, and accordingly denied his motion for an evidentiary hearing on these claims.” Id., at 933.1 Before
As our dissenting colleagues acknowledge, post, at 226-227 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); post, at 229 (opinion of ALITO, J.), the Eleventh Circuit‘s holding was an error under Cone, 556 U. S., at 466-467. “When a state court declines to review the merits of a petitioner‘s claim on the ground that it has done so already, it creates no bar to federal habeas review.” Id., at 466. Both dissenting opinions assume that “the issue on which Cone throws light does not affect the outcome” because “the Eleventh Circuit . . . also decided that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on the merits.” Post, at 227 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Having found a procedural bar, however, the Eleventh Circuit had no need to address whether petitioner was otherwise entitled to an evidentiary hearing and gave this question, at most, perfunctory consideration that may well have turned on the District Court‘s finding of a procedural bar.
Although Wellons appealed the denial of “his motions for discovery and an evidentiary hearing,” 554 F. 3d, at 935, the Eleventh Circuit did not purport to address the merits of that issue at all.2 The court stated only that “[e]ven if we assume that Wellons‘s misconduct claims are not procedurally barred, they do not entitle Wellons to habeas relief.” Id., at 936 (emphasis added). This opaque statement appears to address only whether petitioner was entitled to ultimate relief in the form of a new trial, not whether petitioner‘s allegations, combined with the facts he had learned, entitled him to the discovery and evidentiary hearing that he sought.
The Eleventh Circuit‘s reasoning does not suggest otherwise. The court observed that Wellons’ claims of misconduct were “grounded in his speculation as to the meaning underlying the jurors’ chocolate ‘gifts‘” and “the surmise attached to their passive receipt of these gifts.” Id., at 936. This statement likewise indicates only that on the existing record, habeas relief was inappropriate, not that an evidentiary hearing should be denied. After all, had there been discovery or an evidentiary hearing, Wellons may have been able to present more than “speculation” and “surmise.” The Eleventh Circuit also pointed to the state court‘s decision on direct appeal, see id., at 937, and reviewed that decision “[i]n light of the evidence presented before the Georgia Supreme Court,” ibid. This, too, is typical of a court reviewing the denial of habeas relief, not the denial of discovery or an evidentiary hearing.3
Moreover, the allegedly “unequivocal” holding that JUSTICE ALITO quotes was preceded by a discussion of the deference owed under the
Both dissenting opinions suggest that if there is a strong case for discovery and an evidentiary hearing, then the Court “should summarily reverse or set the case for argument.” Post, at 227 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); see also post, at 232 (opinion of ALITO, J.). But as we have explained, “a GVR order conserves the scarce resources of this Court,” “assists the court below by flagging a particular issue that it does not appear to have fully considered,” and “assists this Court by
Unlike JUSTICE SCALIA, post, at 228, we do not believe that a “self-respecting” court of appeals would or should respond 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 remanded 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 exhausting direct appeal and state postconviction review, he filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court under
Today the Court grants Wellons’ petition for certiorari, vacates 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 procedurally 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 U. S., at 466-467, as respondent recognizes; indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has already recognized the abrogation of the opinion below on this point, see Owen v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 568 F. 3d 894, 915, n. 23 (2009). But, as JUSTICE ALITO‘S dissent demonstrates, post, p. 228, the Eleventh Circuit (like the District Court) also decided that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on the merits. 554 F. 3d, at 936-938. Thus the Court GVRs in light of Cone even though the issue on which Cone throws light does not affect the outcome.
The Court has previously asserted a power to GVR whenever there is “a reasonable probability that the decision below rests upon a premise that the lower court would reject if given the opportunity for further consideration, and where it appears that such a redetermination may determine the ultimate outcome of the litigation.” Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U. S. 163, 167 (1996) (per curiam). I have protested even that flabby standard, see id., at 190-191 (SCALIA, J., dissenting), but today the Court outdoes itself. It GVRs where the decision below does not “rest upon” the objectionable faulty premise, but is independently supported by other grounds—so that redetermination of the faulty ground will assuredly not “determine the ultimate outcome of the litigation.” The power to “revise and correct for error,” which the Court has already turned into “a power to void for suspicion,” id., at 190 (same) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), has now become the power to send back for a redo. We have no authority to decree that. If the Court thinks that the Eleventh Circuit‘s merits holding is wrong, then it should summarily reverse or set the case for argument; otherwise, the judgment below must stand. The same is true if (as the Court evidently believes) the Court of Appeals should have required an evidentiary hearing before resolving the merits question. If they erred in that regard their judgment should be reversed rather than remanded “in light of Cone v. Bell“—a disposition providing no hint that what we really
The systematic degradation of our traditional requirements for a GVR has spawned a series of unusual dispositions, including the GVR so the Government can try a less extravagant argument on remand, see Department of Interior v. South Dakota, 519 U. S. 919, 921 (1996) (SCALIA, J., dissenting), the GVR in light of nothing, see Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U. S. 867, 872 (2006) (same), and the newly minted Summary Remand for More Extensive Opinion than Petitioner Requested (SRMEOPR), see Webster v. Cooper, post, at 1042 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). Today the Court adds another beast to our growing menagerie: the SRIE, Summary Remand for Inconsequential Error—or, as the Court would have it, the SRTAEH, Summary Remand to Think About an Evidentiary Hearing.
It disrespects the judges of the courts of appeals, who are appointed and confirmed as we are, to vacate and send back their authorized judgments for inconsequential imperfection of opinion—as though we were schoolmasters grading their homework. An appropriately self-respecting response to today‘s summary vacatur would be summary reissuance of the same opinion, minus the discussion of Cone. That would also serve the purpose of minimizing the delay of justice that today‘s GVR achieves (Wellons has already outlived his victim by 20 years; he committed his murder in 1989).
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.
The Court‘s disposition of this case represents a misuse of our authority to grant, vacate, and remand (GVR). The decision of the Court of Appeals plainly rests on two independent grounds: first, that petitioner procedurally defaulted his claim that the judge, bailiff, and jurors had an inappropriate relationship that impaired his right to a fair trial and, second, that petitioner‘s claim failed on the merits. See 554 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 default. See 554 F. 3d, at 937-938 (“[E]ven if these claims were properly before us on habeas review, we would not disturb the Georgia Supreme Court‘s conclusion on the merits of these claims“); id., at 936 (“Even if we assume that Wellons‘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 panel‘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 consideration” to petitioner‘s claim that he was entitled to an evidentiary 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 majority 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 showing to warrant interrogation of the jurors. As the detailed
After examining the proffer made by petitioner‘s attorneys, the District Court concluded that this submission did not justify formal discovery. With respect to what the per curiam describes as the “unreported ex parte contacts between the jury and the judge,” ante, at 221—which apparently consisted of a brief exchange of words that occurred when the judge entered the room in a restaurant where the jurors were dining—the District Court concluded that “nothing that Petitioner has presented provides even the slightest indication that anything more than a simple greeting occurred,” App. C to Pet. for Cert. 43.
With respect to the gifts that were given to the judge and a bailiff after the trial ended, the District Court stressed that they were “inappropriate” and represented “an unusual display of poor taste in the context of a proceeding so grave as a capital trial,” ibid., but the court noted that petitioner had not proffered any evidence that any of the jurors or court personnel who were interviewed had said anything that substantiated the assertion that “an inappropriate relationship existed between the judge, the bailiff, and the jury,” id., at 44.
A fair reading of the Court of Appeals’ opinion is that that court likewise held that petitioner was not entitled to the discovery he sought because that discovery was unlikely to yield evidence substantiating his claim. See 554 F. 3d, at 935 (“When deciding whether to grant a federal habeas petitioner‘s request for an evidentiary hearing, ‘a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant 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 troubling, 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 decided the discovery issue, and now this Court has two options. First, if we wish to review the question whether petitioner made a sufficient showing to justify interrogation of the jurors, we should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari 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 entirely independent of the ground for the GVR—is extraordinary and, in my view, improper.