ILNews

Justices decline convicted police officer’s murder appeal, 21 other cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Evansville police officer convicted in the 1990s of murder and arson for the death of his mistress will not be getting a new trial. The Indiana Supreme Court declined Glenn Patrick Bradford’s appeal, leaving his convictions in place.

Bradford sought post-conviction relief for the convictions stemming from a 1992 fire at the home of Tammy Lohr, resulting in her death. The Indiana Court of Appeals in May decided not to grant his petition for post-conviction relief.

Bradford was sentenced to the maximum of 80 years for the crimes.

The justices also declined Steven Weinreb’s appeal of the partial grant by the Court of Appeals of summary judgment and a monetary award to Fannie Mae. Weinreb and his business partners used a loan from Fannie Mae to acquire an Indianapolis apartment complex. Weinreb’s company failed to pay monthly installments on the loan and later brought the apartments to a sheriff’s sale. Weinreb argued that he hadn’t read the loan documents before signing them because of their complexity. The Court of Appeals pointed out that a failure to read doesn’t equate to an ambiguity arising from the implementation of the clear terms of the note, mortgage and guaranty.

The Supreme Court did not take Darla Brenton’s appeal after the Court of Appeals affirmed the order removing her as special administrator of the estate of Evelyn Norfleet for purposes of bringing a wrongful death action. Norfleet had named her son, Brenton’s brother, as executor, which Brenton did not tell the court at the time she petitioned to be special administrator. She was removed because her appointment was not proper under I.C. 29-1-10-15.

The justices did accept on transfer Gersh Zavodnik v. Michela Rinaldi, et al, 49S05-1311-CT-759, in which they reversed dismissal because of questions about whether a defendant had been properly served notice.

The transfer list for the week ending Nov. 22 is available on the court’s website.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT