Lawyer Leslie P. Smith brooded over what he knew for a decade: information that might spare the life of an inmate on Virginia's death row. He had thought about disclosing it long ago. But back in 1998, he had been told not to jeopardize the interests of his own client.

The case he could not forget was that of Daryl Atkins, who was convicted in a carjacking murder in York County, Va., and whose appeals spurred the U.S. Supreme Court to a landmark ruling that banned executions of mentally retarded inmates. Ironically, Atkins remained on death row in spite of the historic decision, his own mental limitations still under debate.

All the while, there was Smith, a solo practitioner in Hampton, sometimes pondering his vow of silence. He had been the attorney for Atkins's co-defendant. And what he felt he knew was this: His own client had been coached in his testimony to help ensure that Atkins got the death penalty.

Last spring, Smith, 64, unexpectedly decided to raise the issue again, writing a letter to the Virginia Bar. This time, he was urged to tell what he knew, he testified in court. And the outcome of that revelation came Thursday evening: Atkins's sentence was commuted to life in prison, bringing apparent finality to a case that has bounced from court to court for a decade.

In the end, it seemed one man's disclosure had changed everything. Many lauded Smith for coming forward, although others asked why he waited so long.

"The court finds that Leslie Smith's evidence was indeed credible," Circuit Court Judge Prentis Smiley Jr. said Thursday as the low-key Hampton lawyer watched quietly in the courtroom. The judge noted that Smith had "absolutely nothing to gain."

Atkins's own counsel told the court, "He comes forward at great personal cost to himself."

To some, Smith might seem an unlikely man for the spotlight.

After the ruling was handed down, he left the courthouse without comment. A day later, he was working in his office in Hampton, even though it was a state holiday. Not a showman, not a tough talker, Smith has practiced law 37 years -- half real estate, half criminal work. Other lawyers describe him as honest, forthright.

"He's just a pleasant, down-to-earth, plain-spoken kind of guy," said Ron Smith, a Hampton lawyer who has known him 20 years. "What he did was extraordinary, and he wrestled with it a long time."

"Somebody's sitting on death row, and you know there's evidence . . . they don't know about," said Ron Smith, who is no relation to Leslie Smith. "That's an awful situation for a lawyer to be in."

Over his long career, Leslie Smith has handled five or six capital cases, including the one involving Atkins's co-defendant.

Scandaglia & Ryan is a litigation firm founded on the principle of providing sophisticated legal services in a cost-effective manner.  To achieve this, we have adopted a client-centered process that we call Total Quality Litigation®.  In pursuing strategic business and legal solutions for our clients, TQL® minimizes uncertainty and increases accountability.  We believe our clients deserve nothing less.  For further information, visit our website at www.scandagliaryan.com.

A woman is appearing in court in connection with the discovery of explosives during a Garda raid of a home.

Two pipe bombs, a shotgun, ammunition and drugs were seized during the search at Barry Park, Finglas, in north Dublin, last Friday. The 22-year-old woman, arrested during the operation, is expected to appear before Dublin District Court on charges linked to the finds.

Army bomb disposal experts were called in to deal with the explosive devices at the time. Cocaine and herbal cannabis believed to have a street value of 10,000 euro was sent to the Garda Technical Bureau for forensic analysis. The woman was being held at Finglas Garda station under Section 2 of the Drug Trafficking Act.

The justices agreed to review claims by Vicky Crawford, who was fired in 2003 after more than 30 years as an employee of the school system for Nashville, Tenn., and Davidson County.

Months earlier, investigators interviewed Crawford about the school district's director of employee relations, Gene Hughes, and Crawford told them Hughes had sexually harassed her and other employees.

The investigation found Hughes had acted inappropriately, but did not recommend that he been disciplined.

Instead, Crawford learned she faced charges of irregularities in her job as payroll coordinator, and she was fired. Crawford then filed a federal lawsuit claiming she had been dismissed in retaliation for alleging harassment by Hughes.

A U.S. district judge and a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit. The courts said the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not apply to Crawford because she didn't raise harassment claims on her own but merely responded to investigators' questions.

The Bush administration is supporting Crawford. "Internal investigations are an integral aspect of Title VII and there is no reason to leave cooperating witnesses unprotected," said Solicitor General Paul Clement.

The justices also will review a separate case involving age-discrimination claims filed by former workers at the Knolls Atomic Power Lab.

It was the second time Turkey banned the site because of clips deemed disrespectful to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. It is illegal in Turkey to insult the revered figure, whose portrait still hangs in nearly all government offices nearly 70 years after his death.

Users trying to access the Web site from Turkey were met with notices in English and Turkish saying it was banned under an Ankara court order issued Jan. 17.

Last March, another court blocked access to YouTube for two days after a complaint that some clips insulted Ataturk, a war hero who founded Turkey from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. The ban was lifted after YouTube removed the offending videos.

In September, a court in the eastern city of Sivas ordered a ban after saying video on the site insulted Ataturk, President Abdullah Gul, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the army, but the ban was never implemented.

Vatan newspaper reported Sunday that the current ban also was imposed because of videos that were allegedly disrespectful of Ataturk.

It was not clear how long the current ban would last. The state-run Anatolia said officials from YouTube, which is owned by Google, issued a statement saying the company hoped access would be re-established quickly.

The YouTube bans in Turkey have highlighted the country's troubled record on free expression. Several prominent Turkish journalists and writers — including Nobel literature prize winner Orhan Pamuk — have been tried for allegedly insulting "Turkishness."

Turkey is not alone in blocking YouTube. Last year, the Thai government banned the site for about four months because of clips seen as offensive to Thailand's revered monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

And in May, Moroccans were unable to access YouTube after users posted videos critical of Morocco's treatment of the people of Western Sahara, a territory that Morocco took control of in 1975. An official blamed a technical glitch, but could not explain its nature or why it affected only the YouTube site.

The tobacco industry is trying to head off a wave of state-based challenges regarding the light cigarettes, even as it is appealing a federal judge's order to stop marketing cigarettes as "low tar," "light," "ultra light" or "mild" because they mislead consumers.

The issue before the justices is whether state laws against unfair marketing practices may be used in suits against the tobacco companies or whether federal law bars such lawsuits. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act says states can't impose any requirements on the advertising or promotion of cigarettes.

A federal judge initially threw out a suit filed by three Maine residents against Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary that alleged the advertising of light cigarettes was unfair and deceptive.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, however, reinstated the suit.

The Maine plaintiffs said they smoked Marlboro Lights, made by Philip Morris, for at least 15 years. They claim the company marketed the cigarettes as "light" and having "lowered tar and nicotine" despite knowing that those statements were false, in violation of Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The company has research, the plaintiffs say, that shows it knew that smokers of the light cigarettes took deeper puffs and used other techniques to ensure they received as much nicotine as they would have gotten from regular cigarettes.

Philip Morris said the lawsuit was properly dismissed by the federal judge and called on the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between appeals courts over these sorts of lawsuits. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans last year dismissed a similar suit.

In the government's landmark case against tobacco companies, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said the companies "distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting."

That case is on appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

A separate federal lawsuit filed by smokers is pending in New York. The class-action suit alleges tobacco companies violated federal racketeering laws by promoting light cigarettes as lower-risk alternatives to regular cigarettes even though their internal documents showed they knew the risks were about the same. The class may consist of as many as 60 million people, lawyers say.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York is considering whether the lawsuit can proceed as a class action or whether smokers must file suit individually.

The basics of the claims against the companies are similar in all the lawsuits: The companies knew that smokers may compensate for the lower tar and nicotine yields by taking deeper puffs, holding the smoke in their lungs longer or smoking more cigarettes.

The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed a brief in support of its chief rival, saying the financial stakes in the case are enormous.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also backing Altria, said the appeals court ruling could extend well beyond cigarette labels to product liability lawsuits against many industries.