Three U.S. Supreme Court Justice Comments
New York Times and Washington Post Excerpts December 3, 1991
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O Connor, Harry A. Blackman
and John Paul Stevens issued a rare five page statement when O Dell's
case was turned down by the Virginia Supreme Court (due to the wrong
title on his appeal).
New York Times: "The Supreme Court refused.. to hear the case of a
Virginia death row prisoner, but issued an unusual statement from
three justices who said "the evidence raises serious questions" about
whether he was guilty of the murder. "In short, there are serious q
uestion as to whether O'Dell committed the crime or was capable of
representing himself questions rendered all the more serious by the
fact that O'Dells life depends upon their answers...", Justice
Blackman said. "Because of the gross injustice that would result if
an innocent man were sentenced to death, O'Dell's substantial federal
claims can, and should, receive careful consideration .. The evidence
against him consisted of tire tracks at the crime scene "similar" to
O'Dells car, bloodstains on hi s clothing that a technician testified
were "consistent" with samples taken from the victim, and a fellow
inmate who testified that O'Dell had confessed to the murder...O'Dell
claimed the informant had offered to manufacture evidence in other
trials to av oid prison" (the informant was given three years
probation on four breaking and entering charges and an arson).
Washington Post: "Justice O Connor..joined Justice John Paul Stevens
and Justice Harry A. Blackman in a five page statement and wrote that
"serious questions remained about whether Mr. O Dells constitutional
rights were violated in his 1985 murder trial and about whether he had
been wrongly convicted. Mr. O Dell was convicted of murdering a woman
in Virginia Beach. Both had spent part of the evening at the same bar,
although there was no evidence that they had been there together or
that they knew each other. The evide nce that led to his conviction
was circumstantial, based largely on a chemical test indicating that
blood on his clothes matched the victim s blood. After his conviction,
a new type of blood analysis came into use. Using this more
sophisticated test, base d on DNA, the two blood samples did not
match, but the state courts did not permit him to introduce the new
evidence...Review is necessary to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of
justice."
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------