Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, January 22, 1995                   TAG: 9501230080
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: B1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: CODY LOWE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

JUDGE SAYS LEGAL RIGHT NEGLECTED

But Turk delayed until Monday a decision on whether he will grant a stay of execution for Edmonds, who is scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday night.

At issue in Edmonds' most recent appeal of his death sentence is whether state law allows questions about his representation at trial to be raised now.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled last week that the appeal came too late, raising issues that Edmonds' attorneys should have known about and raised earlier.

Turk, who is required to give deference to state court decisions as he considers the appeal, seemed uncomfortable with that ruling, made without a hearing and issued without any explanation of its rationale. As he questioned Assistant Attorney General Thomas Bagwell Saturday afternoon, Turk declared several times that he believes Edmonds' Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was infringed upon.

Reflecting on the Virginia Supreme Court's action, he contemplated aloud whether following "procedure" made it "all right to put a man to death" when his constitutional rights clearly had been violated.

Turk persistently questioned Assistant Attorney General Thomas Bagwell about the justice of Edmonds' conviction.

"Your office wants to see justice done, doesn't it? You would not want to see somebody put to death without having had effective counsel?

"No matter how guilty he was, no matter how heinous the crime was," every defendant is entitled to "effective assistance of counsel," Turk went on. "There is no doubt at all he [Edmonds] did not have effective assistance of council. There is no doubt whatever of that.

"The only question is whether he is procedurally barred" from raising the issue now .

The law prohibits appellants from dragging out their appeals by filing one petition after another seeking new hearings on issues that could have been raised earlier. The question for Turk is whether Edmonds' previous attorneys should have known about the issue being raised in this appeal and made an issue of it during their first appearance in his court in 1989.

Barry Weinstein, a Richmond lawyer representing Edmonds, contends that Edmonds' trial attorney - J. Patterson Rogers III - had a serious conflict of interest.

While Rogers was defending Edmonds against the capital murder charge, he was appointed by a lower court to represent a woman named Laverne Coles in an unrelated criminal matter. Coles, who had been involved in a sometimes-violent romantic relationship with Edmonds, then was called as a prosecution witness against Edmonds at his trial.

Rogers' representation of both clients resulted in an illegal conflict of interest in which Rogers could not vehemently attack a witness he would later be representing as a defendent in court, Edmonds' appeal argues.

Rogers recently said he explained the situation to both clients who agreed to the arrangement at the time. Edmonds denies that.

Whatever Turk decides, an immediate appeal to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to be filed Monday.

Edmonds was convicted of robbing and killing John Elliott in July 1983. Edmonds has contended he killed Elliott in self-defense after Elliott pulled a gun on him and denies taking any money. Elliott had been hit on the head with a brick, gagged and stabbed in the throat.