THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, September 15, 1995 TAG: 9509140150
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 64 lines
This firm has represented Joe O'Dell for the last several years in habeas corpus proceedings. This letter is prompted by a letter from Commonwealth's Attorney Robert J. Humphreys in the July 28 Beacon (``For good reason, Joe O'Dell is on Death Row'').
This letter is written on behalf of our firm and Andrew Sebok, who was counsel for Mr. O'Dell at an earlier stage in the proceedings. The purpose of this letter is to make clear that Mr. Humphreys' statements about Mr. O'Dell's lawyers in that article are false and libelous, and to warn him against any repetition of his defamatory remarks.
I refer specifically to the following statements:
1. ``Since his case has been on appeal, O'Dell and his lawyers, who seem to take the attitude that anything goes in trying to keep a murderer from being executed, have contacted witnesses who testified against him at trial urging them to recant their testimony and threatening legal action against them if they do not.''
So far as I am aware, no lawyer for Mr. O'Dell has threatened legal action against any trial witness. I can assure you that no one from this firm has done so, and Mr. Sebok gives the same assurance on his behalf.
2. ``During court proceedings, O'Dell was given the opportunity to utilize the now-accepted DNA analysis of the bloodstains on his clothing. The analysis was performed and O'Dell's lawyers refused to release the results to the court or the attorney general but insisted that the results were evidence of his innocence.''
Of course it would be pointless to announce that certain results ``were evidence of (Mr. O'Dell's) innocence'' and at the same time refuse to release them. No lawyer for Mr. O'Dell has ever done any such thing.
3. ``O'Dell and his lawyers completely fabricated the results of the DNA testing in their brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, prompting Justice O'Connor to comment that O'Dell may actually be innocent.''
This statement is itself a complete fabrication, and a grossly defamatory one. I challenge Mr. Humphreys to identify the statements in the brief to the United States Supreme Court that were ``fabricated.''
4. ``Following this comment from Justice O'Connor, the attorney general obtained a court order for the release of the DNA results over the vehement objections of O'Dell and his lawyers. One should ask, why would they try so hard to suppress this so-called `evidence of in-no-cence'?''
We in fact consented to the release of the DNA results in question. I am aware of no basis for your contrary statement.
Mr. Sebok and the lawyers at this firm have been most careful to act professionally in the course of this case and have never, so far as I am aware, made any adverse comment to the media about the conduct of any attorney representing the commonwealth. This is not the first time, however, that the commonwealth's attorneys have responded by defaming us in public. Under the circumstances, although I find the business of lawyers attacking each other in the public press distasteful, I see no choice but to send a copy of this letter to the newspaper which printed Mr. Humphreys' article.
Robert S. Smith
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison
Attorneys at law
New York, N.Y. by CNB