Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 517.0

529US2

Unit: $U47

[10-04-01 09:34:47] PAGES PGT: OPIN

442

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of the Court

question was misleading as a matter of fact because, under
any interpretation, Woodson had acted as counsel to her and
Meinhard in their divorce. Coupled with Woodson’s own
reticence, these omissions as a whole disclose the need for an
evidentiary hearing.
It may be that petitioner could estab-
lish that Stinnett was not impartial, see Smith v. Phillips,
455 U. S. 209, 217, 219–221 (1982), or that Woodson’s silence
so infected the trial as to deny due process, see Donnelly v.
DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637, 647–648 (1974).

In ordering an evidentiary hearing on the juror bias and
prosecutorial misconduct claims, the District Court con-
cluded the factual basis of the claims was not reasonably
available to petitioner’s counsel during state habeas proceed-
ings. After the Court of Appeals vacated this judgment,
the District Court dismissed the petition and the Court of
Appeals afﬁrmed under the theory that state habeas counsel
should have discovered Stinnett’s relationship to Meinhard
and Woodson. See 189 F. 3d, at 428.

We disagree with the Court of Appeals on this point. The
trial record contains no evidence which would have put a
reasonable attorney on notice that Stinnett’s nonresponse
was a deliberate omission of material information. State
habeas counsel did attempt to investigate petitioner’s jury,
though prompted by concerns about a different juror. App.
388–389. Counsel ﬁled a motion for expert services with
the Virginia Supreme Court, alleging “irregularities, impro-
prieties and omissions exist[ed] with respect to the empanel-
Id., at 358. Based on these suspi-
ing [sic] of the jury.”
cions, counsel requested funding for an investigator “to
examine all circumstances relating to the empanelment of
the jury and the jury’s consideration of the case.”
Ibid.
The Commonwealth opposed the motion, and the Virginia
Supreme Court denied it and dismissed the habeas petition,
depriving petitioner of a further opportunity to investigate.
The Virginia Supreme Court’s denial of the motion is under-
standable in light of petitioner’s vague allegations, but the