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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.