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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT