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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  2. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  3. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  4. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  5. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

ADVERTISEMENT