ILNews

Judges rule cop won't have new trial on murder, arson charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Evansville police officer who killed his mistress more than 20 years ago wasn’t able to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday that he is entitled to post-conviction relief.

Glenn Patrick Bradford raised several issues on appeal after Vanderburgh Circuit Judge Carld Heldt denied his petition for relief last year. Among those, Bradford argued that Bunch v. State, 964 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), supports his claim that newly discovered evidence relating to a fire that broke out at Tammy Lohr’s house entitled him to a new trial.

Bradford and Lohr had an extramarital affair for four years until Bradford attempted to end the affair. He would often stop by her house before and after his night shift. In August 1992, he reported a fire at her house at 6:35 a.m. and gave conflicting reports to others on the scene as to whether he went inside and where Lohr’s body was. Investigators believed the fire couldn’t have been burning for more than a few minutes when firefighters responded and that it was intentionally set. Lohr’s body had multiple stab wounds.

Bradford was charged and convicted of murder and arson and sentenced to the maximum of 80 years.

At his hearing for post-conviction relief, Douglas Carpenter testified on behalf of Bradford and concluded that the fire began between 4:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. Bradford argued that this is newly discovered evidence that entitles him to a new trial. But his testimony was largely cumulative of Barker Davie’s, who testified at trial that the fire had started before Bradford arrived at the house. In addition, many of the tests that Carpenter used to come to his conclusion were possible at the time of Bradford’s trial, and his testimony was not based on major advancements in fire investigation science, as was the case in Bunch, Senior Judge Randal T. Shepard wrote in Glenn Patrick Bradford v. State of Indiana, 82A01-1203-PC-129.

Bradford also raised claims of ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate attorneys, but the judges only found an instance of ineffective assistance when his attorney didn’t object to a final jury instruction regarding the consideration of prior statements as substantive evidence of guilt. Considering the entirety of the case and his counsel’s vigorous pursuit of an alibi defense, among other things, the COA determined Bradford wasn’t prejudiced by his trial attorney’s error.

The judges found no reason to overturn the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT