The U.S. Supreme Court case of Marcus A. Wellons v. Hilton Hall, Warden in 2009 revolved around the issue of whether a death row inmate was entitled to information about his jury's behavior during deliberations and sentencing in order to prove bias or misconduct that could have influenced their decision. The petitioner, Marcus A. Wellons, convicted for rape and murder in Georgia state court and sentenced to death, claimed that inappropriate gifts exchanged between the judge and jurors demonstrated potential bias affecting his sentence. Wellons appealed on grounds that he was denied due process because he wasn't allowed access to juror names or addresses for investigation purposes after learning about these exchanges post-trial through an anonymous tipster who contacted his attorney. In a per curiam opinion (an unsigned opinion by the court as a whole), the Supreme Court vacated prior judgments denying relief from lower courts including Georgia State Supreme Court & Eleventh Circuit Federal Appeals Court; it remanded back down for further proceedings consistent with its ruling - essentially instructing them reconsider their decisions under new guidance provided by this judgment.

In the dissenting opinion for Marcus A. Wellons v. Hilton Hall, Warden, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the case should have been remanded for an evidentiary hearing in light of new evidence suggesting potential juror bias and misconduct during Wellons' trial. She expressed concern over allegations that jurors had given sexually suggestive gifts to the judge and bailiff during deliberations on a capital sexual assault case - behavior she deemed inappropriate and potentially indicative of a lack of seriousness towards their duty as jurors in such a grave matter. Furthermore, she noted that Georgia's state courts did not provide adequate opportunity to investigate these claims fully or fairly due to procedural barriers which prevented them from considering new evidence after direct appeal proceedings concluded. In her view, this failure violated Wellon's constitutional right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment.