Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 519.0

529US2

Unit: $U47

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

444

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of the Court

pointment of state habeas counsel to ﬁle a petition with the
Virginia Supreme Court. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01–654.1 (1999).
State habeas counsel was appointed on August 10, 1995,
about a year before petitioner’s investigator on federal ha-
beas uncovered the information regarding Stinnett and
Woodson. As state postconviction relief was no longer
available at the time the facts came to light, it would have
been futile for petitioner to return to the Virginia courts.
In these circumstances, though the state courts did not have
an opportunity to consider the new claims, petitioner cannot
be said to have failed to develop them in state court by rea-
son of having neglected to pursue remedies available under
Virginia law.

Our analysis should sufﬁce to establish cause for any pro-
cedural default petitioner may have committed in not pre-
senting these claims to the Virginia courts in the ﬁrst in-
stance. Questions regarding the standard for determining
the prejudice that petitioner must establish to obtain relief
on these claims can be addressed by the Court of Appeals or
the District Court in the course of further proceedings.
These courts, in light of cases such as Smith, supra, at 215
(“[T]he remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing
in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual
bias”), will take due account of the District Court’s earlier
decision to grant an evidentiary hearing based in part on
its belief that “Juror Stinnett deliberately failed to tell the
truth on voir dire.” Williams v. Netherland, Civ. Action
No. 3:96CV529 (ED Va., Apr. 13, 1998), App. 529, 557.

IV

Petitioner alleges the Commonwealth failed to disclose an
informal plea agreement with Cruse. The Court of Appeals
rejected this claim on the merits under § 2254(d)(1), so it is
unnecessary to reach the question whether § 2254(e)(2) would
permit a hearing on the claim.