The Supreme Court and Naughty Chocolate

[Brown]

Occasionally, a case comes down from the US Supreme Court that is just plain weird. Reading the opinion is almost like going to a freak show.

Such may be the case of Wellons vs. Hall (read the opinion here). Wellons was a really bad guy. He committed a heinous crime, murder and rape. He was put on death row. (Wellons's race is not reported in the opinion.) According to an anonymous author speaking for a majority of the Supreme Court (the majority consisting of Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor), the trial for Wellons "looked typical."

But there was a bunch of weird stuff going on, none of it becoming a part of the official record:

Only after the trial did defense counsel learn that there had been unreported ex parte contacts between the jury and the judge, that jurors and a bailiff had planned a reunion, and that "either during or immediately following the penalty phase, some jury members gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts...." The judge had not reported any of this to the defense.

What prompted the giving of the naughty chocolate? Wellons's lawyers wanted to find out, but procedural hurdles prevented Wellons from obtaining evidence, and eventually the appellate courts told Wellons that he had lost his case, and his requests to find out about what prompted events such as the giving of naughty chocolate gifts were barred.

The law was clear. That there was an "inappropriate relationship" among the judge, bailiff and jurors was beyond dispute. Even Justices Scalia and Alito (who wrote dissenting opinions) and Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas (who also dissented) agreed on that point. The case seemed to turn on whether the inappropriate relationship made a difference in the outcome.

The majority said that Wellons deserved a chance to develop an evidentiary record that the giving of the naughty chocolate did affect the outcome.

Justice Scalia suggested the error was inconsequential and that the Supreme Court was acting like a schoolmaster grading homework. He also questioned why there was a summary remand. Why was there such a serious concern about "delay of justice" here? "Wellons has already outlived his victim by 20 years...."

Justice Alito said the whole naughty chocolate incident was of no effect. The jurors had all been interviewed (not under oath, though), and they remembered giving the naughty chocolate gifts but did not remember why. So what function would development of an evidentiary record serve?

As the majority pointed out, however, there was some concern about whether the jurors were being forthright, since some refused to talk, some were hostile, and one juror (in what appears to be a remarkable display of candor) admitted to being "concerned that she might say something that would be used for a mistrial."

 

[KingMerv00]

Justice Scalia suggested the error was inconsequential...

Depending on the facts, I'd say this could be a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Why was there such a serious concern about "delay of justice" here? "Wellons has already outlived his victim by 20 years...."

But this is just screams class.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Georgia, how quaint.

While jurors aren't expected to be professional, one would hope they'd be well behaved. It seems that the judge in this case, and the bailiff, crossed the bounds of professional behavior.

WTF?

Regardless of Wellon's guilt, which may be well shown, I don't think any citizen can feel confidence in a serious process, felony murder trial, that is conducted with such breaches in professional conduct. Case is old. What has the state of Georgiadone to issue guidance on professional conduct in the courts in that state?

Occasionally, a case comes down from the US Supreme Court that is just plain weird. Reading the opinion is almost like going to a freak show.

Such may be the case of Wellons vs. Hall (read the opinion here). Wellons was a really bad guy. He committed a heinous crime, murder and rape. He was put on death row. (Wellons's race is not reported in the opinion.) According to an anonymous author speaking for a majority of the Supreme Court (the majority consisting of Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor), the trial for Wellons "looked typical."

But there was a bunch of weird stuff going on, none of it becoming a part of the official record:What prompted the giving of the naughty chocolate? Wellons's lawyers wanted to find out, but procedural hurdles prevented Wellons from obtaining evidence, and eventually the appellate courts told Wellons that he had lost his case, and his requests to find out about what prompted events such as the giving of naughty chocolate gifts were barred.

The law was clear. That there was an "inappropriate relationship" among the judge, bailiff and jurors was beyond dispute. Even Justices Scalia and Alito (who wrote dissenting opinions) and Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas (who also dissented) agreed on that point. The case seemed to turn on whether the inappropriate relationship made a difference in the outcome.

The majority said that Wellons deserved a chance to develop an evidentiary record that the giving of the naughty chocolate did affect the outcome.

Justice Scalia suggested the error was inconsequential and that the Supreme Court was acting like a schoolmaster grading homework. He also questioned why there was a summary remand. Why was there such a serious concern about "delay of justice" here? "Wellons has already outlived his victim by 20 years...."

Justice Alito said the whole naughty chocolate incident was of no effect. The jurors had all been interviewed (not under oath, though), and they remembered giving the naughty chocolate gifts but did not remember why. So what function would development of an evidentiary record serve?

As the majority pointed out, however, there was some concern about whether the jurors were being forthright, since some refused to talk, some were hostile, and one juror (in what appears to be a remarkable display of candor) admitted to being "concerned that she might say something that would be used for a mistrial."

 

[Cleon]

*sniff* I love this state...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm, I now know the perfect gifts for supreme court justices.

 

[pgwenthold]

Why are there laws against "improper relationships" between judge and jury? Because there is a concern that it may affect the outcome.

Now, who decides whether it has affected the outcome? I can see it being an issue for the court. However, in order to do that, the parties have to have access to evidence. If the evidence shows there wasn't an effect, then so be it. But they have to be allowed to gather the evidence properly in the first place.

The law affirms that the defense has a legitimate concern in this case. That is why fraternization is not allowed in the first place. But now that fraternization has been shown to occur, the dissenters are claiming the defense does not have the right to investigate whether that fraternization affected the outcome of the trial?

 

[Fiona]

I would have thought that the law was made for a good reason. Therefore if there is to be no investigation the default position should be that it did affect the outcome?

 

[Brown]

The disposition of the case suggests the case should have been an easy one, a slam dunk. Some justices refer to it as a "GVR," which is short for "grant-vacate-remand." According to the majority,

(T)he standard for an order granting certiorari, vacating the judgment below, and remanding the case (GVR) (is): A GVR is appropriate when "intervening developments . . . reveal 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 matter.

The case was not fully argued to the Supreme Court (which was part of Justice Scalia's beef). It was disposed of as if it were a slam dunk.

In some ways, this was an easy case. The misconduct here was clear. The law on misconduct was clear. The law on procedure was clear. Wellons, despite being a raping, murdering, scum-of-the-earth low-life, was entitled to at least have an opportunity to make an evidentiary record about the misconduct and how it might have affected the outcome. That doesn't mean he goes free. It doesn't necessarily mean that he gets a new trial. Strictly speaking, it doesn't even mean that he actually WILL be permitted to make his evidentiary record.

One of the repeated basic principles of jurisprudence is that people (whether they are rotten death row felons or not) have the right to be heard and present evidence when their rights are affected. Wellons did not get this right. Not only that, his pleas that he had such a right were dismissed out-of-hand.

It is tempting to say "Who gives a crap about the rights of a CRIMINAL, especially a lower-than-whale-excrement felon like Wellons??" (It may well be argued that this is what the dissenters are indeed saying.) But still, the rights involved are not just the rights of Wellons. They are the rights of every citizen. And in the overall picture, what the judge, jury and bailiff did looks BAD. Not as bad as rape and murder, but still BAD. To suggest that such misconduct cannot be questioned would suggest that the judicial system is not interested in policing itself, and that looks EVEN WORSE.