Beware of jurors bearing gifts
Obviously, in some trials, jurors can develop a real fondness for the judge and the bailiff. Or so one must assume from the gifts given by jurors in
In Wellons, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled without full briefing or argument, vacating the 11th Circuit ruling that Wellons’s challenge to his conviction was procedurally barred due to an adverse ruling in his state court habeas proceedings. That ruling had come before last year’s Supreme Court Cone v. Bell decision, ruling that federal courts should not deny relief on such grounds.
In this case, there had been ex parte contact between the judge who sentenced the defendant to death and the jurors, including a reunion either during or immediately after the penalty phase where the jurors gave the judge and bailiff chocolate in risqué shapes. The judge did not report the contact, and the defendant learned of the matter only post sentencing. The matter was raised in both the direct appeal and habeas petition, but efforts to obtain discovery into the matter were denied at every level.
The Court began its opinion by noting "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 Court remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine whether an evidentiary hearing on the nature and possible prejudicial effect of the contact was appropriate.
The opinion, issued January 19, was unsigned. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented, asserting that the 11th Circuit had ruled on other grounds.
