U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia's dissenting opinion in the Jan. 19 case of Wellons v. Hall states the case adds "another beast to our growing menagerie." Wellons was a 5-4 decision that stayed Marcus Wellons' execution based on the theory he deserved another appellate review (on top of the four he had already received during the 20 years since he killed his 15-year-old victim in Cobb County). The case is newsworthy because it is the type that decreases the effectiveness of the judicial system by decreasing respect for it. The case also comes at a time when the president has an opportunity to strengthen or weaken the Supreme Court depending on his upcoming nomination to the Court.

Marcus Wellons received the death penalty in Judge Mary Staley's Cobb County Superior Court after a jury found him guilty of a rape and murder he committed in 1989. At trial, Wellons didn't deny raping and killing his victim, but claimed he was innocent by reason of insanity.

The Supreme Court's ruling was based on (1) a misunderstanding of the phrase "ex parte contact;" (2) unsupported speculation Wellons' jurors might have done something improper during his trial because one of them did something foolish after the trial; and (3) stern innuendos about unidentified problems. By way of explanation, four of the five justices who ruled in favor of Wellons had never been trial judges. Unlike other professionals (pilots, surgeons, etc.), Supreme Court Justices aren't required to be qualified by experience before taking the bench. Also, Supreme Court rulings typically involve legal principles that don't require an understanding of jury trial proceedings. A time line of the major facts clarifies the case:

* At trial, the jury heard evidence Wellons kidnapped India Roberts; tortured her by cutting her face and ear; raped her; and strangled her until she died. The medical examiner testified the girl would have gone through the terror of knowing she was going to die during the several minutes Wellons was killing her. Wellons didn't deny this evidence, but pled not guilty by reason of insanity.

* Wellons appealed his conviction on 39 grounds. He claimed his lawyers were incompetent; the judge, jury and bailiff were biased; and 35 legal errors were committed before, during and after the trial.

* During the 20 years after the rape and murder, four state and appellate courts heard and denied Wellons' various appeals.

* The five Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of Wellons didn't cite any evidence supporting their decision, but nevertheless ruled a lower court should keep looking for evidence of improper conduct by the jurors (in a fifth appellate hearing). The justices stated their ruling was based on "serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial" and "whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed the facts."

* The Supreme Court's "serious questions" involved two matters: (1) Judge Staley ran into and greeted Wellons' jurors at a restaurant during a noon recess of the trial and the justices mistakenly believed this was an improper and "unreported ex parte contact." (2) A juror unaccountably gave judge Staley and a bailiff erotically shaped candy after the trial, and the justices speculated some type of jury misconduct might therefore have occurred during the trial.

* Regarding Judge Staley's chance meeting with the jurors, people familiar with jury trials (and the four justices who dissented from the Wellons decision) understand judges, witnesses, lawyers, jurors and court reporters constantly run into each other during trial recesses. These situations (including greetings between judges and juries), however, do not constitute improper ex parte contacts; such contacts involve conversations with judges about the issues in a case without representatives from all sides present.

* The justices' speculation about possible jury misconduct was also misplaced. People familiar with jury trials know jurors are continually monitored during trial (by bailiffs when the jury is outside the courtroom and by the public when the court is in session). Also, jurors take their jobs seriously and necessarily monitor each other during a trial. And again, Wellons' own lawyers and four courts never found any evidence of jury misconduct during the 20 years following the murder. In fact, Wellons' lawyers contacted 11 of the 12 jurors after the trial, interviewed six and found nothing improper to report.

* The Wellons opinion also contains a bitterly self-righteous proclamation that death penalty cases should be tried with "dignity and respect," insinuating Wellons had not been so tried. The author of this statement, however, didn't identify any evidence to support the insinuation.

Judge Staley's 28-year reputation for excellence on the bench provides the best perspective when reviewing the criticism of her trial conduct by justices who have never conducted a trial. Judge Staley's gracious manner and courtesy create a courtroom atmosphere that fosters justice. Like Abraham Lincoln, she "treats people the way friendly neighbors treat each other." She projects a type of good will that puts people at ease. Her decisions are not based on innuendos and suspicion.

Judge Staley's courtesy is not simply an interesting curiosity. According to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo and former Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court Harold Clarke, judicial courtesy is a matter of character and intelligence that is required to obtain due process and justice in the trial courts.

Wellons is a modern day reenactment of the antics in Bardell v. Pickwick (perhaps the most famous fictional trial in English literature - Charles Dickens' parody of an English trial in "The Pickwick Papers"). Mr. Pickwick lost a breach of promise case filed against him because there was no evidence he breached any promise. Pickwick lost because the lack of evidence against him proved he must have hidden it, and the fact he hid the evidence proved he must also have breached his promise.

The Wellons decision follows the Pickwick pattern. After four appellate courts and Wellons' lawyers failed to identify any evidence helpful to Mr. Wellons, the Supreme Court nevertheless ruled the courts should keep looking for evidence against the jurors. The Court excused the lack of evidence supporting its decision by stating it had "serious questions" about the trial court and Court of Appeals, i.e., the trial court must have hidden the evidence and the appellate court must not have looked hard enough to find it.

Because the justice system (like the currency system) is only as strong as the public's confidence in it, cases like Wellons weaken the system's effectiveness because the public sees these cases as lacking common sense and being crime friendly.

Cases like Wellons defeat the justice system's goal of reducing crime because they trivialize vicious brutality and give the public good reason to believe punishment for crimes can be avoided for decades by manipulating the courts.

"Crime friendly" cases like Wellons foster the slack culture which set Michael Ledford free to rape and kill Jennifer Ewing on the Silver Comet Trail despite a 26-year criminal history that included raping a Dallas woman.

The Wellons decision unfairly subjects the best of trial judges to a series of gratuitous innuendos about unidentified trial conduct problems without any supporting evidence. No amount of intellectual preening can excuse this type of attack from justices who are supposed to understand justice.

The Wellons decision also assails the jurors with insinuations of misconduct. Jury service, however, is difficult enough without jurors having to fend off baseless character attacks by criminal defendants and courts for decades following trials.

Lake Rumsey is an attorney in Atlanta.