PWC Consulting


Ronnie Lee Kimble 


 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage





Letter: John Hatfield to Ronnie Kimble






TELEPHONE (3361273-0589
FAX (336) 273-9238


June 14, 2000

Mr. Ronnie Kimble 0628799

Odom Correctional Institute

Route 1, Box 36
Jackson, NC 27845

Dear Ronnie:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 8, 2000.

Since you express your gratitude for the things I mailed you, I assume you are fully satisfied with my response to your last letter.

In the third paragraph of your letter you contend that you did not personally review all of the documents in your case. I am surprised that you would say that in view of the numerous meetings in the jail that you and I had as Panosh made discovery available. Indeed, in the case of Mitch Whidden, we identified him and sent Mike lngold to talk to Whidden before Panosh even disclosed his name.
After the state rested, you testified and every other witness presented on your behalf was thoroughly evaluated and discussed with you in advance.

Now that you say that you "absolutely disagree" with my statement that Mr. Lloyd and I did everything we could do to prepare for your trial, I can see no reason for further discussion.

I was retained by the Stumps to represent you at trial. I invested literally hundreds of hours in your case. I have completed my duties as your trial counsel.

The trial judge appointed me to assist in your appeal. Pursuant to that appointment I am available to David Lloyd whenever he calls upon me for help.

Mr. Ronnie Kimble

Page Two
June 14, 2000

I also was appointed by the court to represent you in the Smith matter. Since that case has apparently been dismissed there is nothing further for me to do. I have sent you copies of all of the relevant documents in my possession and I discussed the case with you at length while it was pending.

In your letter you refer to "on-going litigation." Other than your appeal, which is being handled primarily by David Lloyd, I am not aware of any "on-going litigation." Your trial is over and the Smith case was dismissed.

If you become a party to future proceedings, I will not agree to serve as your lawyer. My duties to you are essentially finished unless David calls upon me to assist in some aspect of your appeal.

You assert that I was rude to your father. I deny this. You and your brother have caused your parents a great deal of pain and I'm sure they are sensitive to every slight, real or imagined.

You have burned your bridges with Kim and her family and by the unwarranted accusations in your latest letter to me, I can only assume you are burning your bridges here too.

Goodbye Ronnie. In the event of "other litigation" have your lawyer contact me if there is something that I have that he may need.




John B. Hatfield, Jr.

cc: David Lloyd




Published August 15, 2006.  Report broken links or other problems.

PWC Consulting.  Visit our website at for information on our Mission and Services, and to sign up for our Newsletter.