Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 516.0

529US2

Unit: $U47

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

Cite as: 529 U. S. 420 (2000)

441

Opinion of the Court

tioned attorneys?” Stinnett again said nothing, despite the
fact Woodson had represented her during her divorce from
Meinhard. App. 483, 485.

In an afﬁdavit she provided in the federal habeas proceed-
ings, Stinnett claimed “[she] did not respond to the judge’s
[ﬁrst] question because [she] did not consider [herself] ‘re-
lated’ to Claude Meinhard in 1994 [at voir dire] . . . . Once
our marriage ended in 1979, I was no longer related to him.”
Id., at 627. As for Woodson’s earlier representation of her,
Stinnett explained as follows:

“When Claude and I divorced in 1979, the divorce was
uncontested and Mr. Woodson drew up the papers so
that the divorce could be completed. Since neither
Claude nor I was contesting anything, I didn’t think Mr.
Id., at 628.
Woodson ‘represented’ either one of us.”

Woodson provided an afﬁdavit in which he admitted “[he]
was aware that Juror Bonnie Stinnett was the ex-wife of
then Deputy Sheriff Claude Meinhard and [he] was aware
that they had been divorced for some time.”
Id., at 629.
Woodson stated, however, “[t]o [his] mind, people who are
related only by marriage are no longer ‘related’ once the
marriage ends in divorce.”
Ibid. Woodson also “had no
recollection of having been involved as a private attorney in
the divorce proceedings between Claude Meinhard and Bon-
nie Stinnett.”
Id., at 629–630. He explained that “[w]hat-
ever [his] involvement was in the 1979 divorce, by the time
Id.,
of trial in 1994 [he] had completely forgotten about it.”
at 630.

Even if Stinnett had been correct in her technical or literal
interpretation of the question relating to Meinhard, her si-
lence after the ﬁrst question was asked could suggest to the
ﬁnder of fact an unwillingness to be forthcoming; this in turn
could bear on the veracity of her explanation for not disclos-
ing that Woodson had been her attorney. Stinnett’s failure
to divulge material information in response to the second