Williams v. True’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Smith v. Phillips · Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · Williams v. Taylor
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The jury forewoman, Bonnie Baker Me-inhard Stinnett, failed to reveal during voir dire that one of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, Deputy Sheriff Claude B. Meinhard, was her former husband and the father of her four children. Meinhard testified at Williams’ trial about his investigation of the double homicide (the Keller murders) for which Williams was on trial. Juror Stin-nett also failed to reveal that the prosecutor, Robert Woodson, Jr., had been her attorney during her divorce from Meinhard. Stinnett was asked the following questions and gave the following responses during voir dire. The Court first read the name of the two prosecutors, including Robert Woodson, Jr., and the two defense attorneys and posed the following questions: The Court: Have you or any member of your immediate family ever been represented by any of the aforementioned attorneys? Ms. Stinnett made no response (It was understood that no response was the equivalent of a negative response). The Court: Are any of you related to the following people who may be called as witnesses ... Deputy Sheriff Claude Meinhard? Again Ms. Stinnett made no response.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... Stinnett’s voir dire responses were “intentionally misleading” because for unknown reasons, she “very much wanted to be on the jury” and “realized that revelation of her connections ... might jeopardize her chances of being on that jury.” Most importantly, the district court squarely held that “Stinnett was not a fair and impartial juror.” In addition, the district court fond that Wood-son knew of Stinnett’s prior marriage to Meinhard and that his “silence affected Williams’ fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and denied him due process of law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.