502ORD$$1G 02-10-99 16:45:47 PGT•ORD1BV (Bound Volume)
ORDERS 502 U. S.
995
December 2, 1991
No. 91–583. Bosworth et al. v. Leathers, Commissioner of Revenues of Arkansas, et al. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 305 Ark. 598, 810 S. W. 2d 918. No. 91–5604. Irvin v. Kentucky. Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari. No. 91–5655. O’Dell v. Thompson, Warden, et al. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied. Opinion of Justice Blackmun, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice O’Connor join, respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari. This is a capital case. Since the present Term began on October 7, 1991, the Court has considered 102 capital petitions, each seeking review of a decision of a State’s highest court. Even if practical considerations did not preclude review on the merits of all such petitions, another consideration often argues against granting certiorari: In many of these cases, a federal habeas proceeding is necessary to develop further the petitioner’s claims, both factually and legally. This is one such case. Because I believe the evidence raises serious questions about whether petitioner was guilty of the charged crime or was capable of representing himself, I write to underscore the importance of affording petitioner meaningful federal habeas review. On February 5, 1985, a woman was murdered in a field behind the After Midnight Club in Virginia Beach, Va. Petitioner O’Dell had been at that bar during the evening. There was no evidence that he previously had known the woman or that they had spoken or departed together. O’Dell left the bar some time after the victim did and went to another bar where he got into a fight. The following day, O’Dell arrived at his former girlfriend’s house. Thereafter, the former girlfriend found bloodstained clothing in her garage and turned it over to the police. O’Dell was charged with murder. Shortly before the trial, the court excused O’Dell’s public defender because of an unspecified conflict. A new attorney was appointed, but O’Dell sought permission to proceed pro se after the attorney acquiesced in the Commonwealth’s motion to have
