Supreme Court Reviews 20 Year Old Case Due to Inappropriate "Gifts"

A man convicted of rape and murder a little over 20 years ago might possibly get another trial. And not for the typical reasons that a new trial is granted, like new DNA evidence or innocence; but because of improper conduct of the judge, bailiff, and the jurors. What conduct could be so egregious as to warrant the Supreme Court further delaying this man's execution? Apparently, the jurors decided to give out chocolates, either during the penalty phase or directly thereafter, of a questionable nature to both the judge and bailiff. The judge received delightful penis shaped chocolates while the bailiff received breast shaped chocolates. What was behind these unusual gifts is the center of the Defendant's argument for a new trial or at least an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Possibly, there was not only inappropriate gift-giving, but also ex-parte meetings and other such non-sense. And the Defendant wants to get to the bottom of it. 

While it would be a true disservice to the community where this man committed his crimes to release him or even re-hear his case; we certainly cannot tolerate this type of conduct in our judicial system. Moreover, the Defendant has been trying for quite some time to get an evidentiary hearing to determine exactly what occurred and what was kept from him during his trial.

The true bulk of the Supreme Court decision is not to grant a new trial, however, but merely to send it back to the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted based on information the Defendant discovered post-trial. If that hearing is granted and the Defendant can produce enough evidence to show that the actions of the judge and jury during the trial were inappropriate; only then will he get the opportunity to have a new trial. Of course, a new trial also does not mean that he won't be convicted again. However, the waste in judicial resources could have easily been avoided had this behavior just not occurred in the first place.  Do we really need to give people more reasons to distrust the legal system?