Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/903

 502ORD$$1G 02-10-99 16:45:47 PGT•ORD1BV (Bound Volume)

996

OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Opinion of Blackmun, J.

502 U. S.

O’Dell examined by a court-appointed psychiatrist.1 Following his examination by a local psychiatrist, the court found O’Dell competent to proceed pro se and ordered the attorney to act as standby counsel. Several times during the trial, the judge commented on O’Dell’s inability to “emotionally control” himself, see, e. g., 22 Tr. 44, and on one occasion informed O’Dell that his outbursts “concern me as to whether you are in fact in need of a reevaluation.” 23 Tr. 21. Despite entreaties by standby counsel, the court refused to order a reevaluation. The Commonwealth’s evidence at trial consisted of tire tracks that were “similar” to those left by petitioner’s car, blood tests, and testimony by a fellow inmate that O’Dell had confessed to committing the murder. The court refused O’Dell’s request for a hearing on the reliability of the blood tests and allowed the technician to opine that the blood samples taken from O’Dell’s shirt and jacket were consistent with samples taken from the victim. The court also denied O’Dell’s proffer of evidence that the informant had offered to manufacture evidence in other trials as a means of avoiding prison terms.2 O’Dell was convicted and sentenced to death. The conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal. O’Dell continued to maintain his innocence during state habeas proceedings. He introduced the results of DNA testing that demonstrated that the blood found on his shirt either was not the victim’s or could not reliably be linked to the victim. O’Dell also argued that the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself, given his history of mental illness and his behavior at trial. See Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 181 (1975). The Virginia Circuit Court denied state habeas relief, specifically holding that the fact that current testing methods would have produced a different result does not justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The state court also ruled that O’Dell had been competent to represent himself.3 1

O’Dell previously had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and had engaged in erratic behavior prior to trial. 2 Subsequent to O’Dell’s trial, the informant was given three years’ probation on a breaking and entering charge, despite contrary assurances by the prosecution to petitioner’s counsel and the court. 3 Petitioner raised a number of other substantial federal claims, including a challenge to remarks made in the prosecutor’s closing argument that petitioner previously had violated his parole. Standby counsel had complained