The more overt examples, the flagrant perjuries, are a sure guage of Levco's professional corruption, but the State's case was infused with deception from beginnng to end. Perhaps the best indiation of Levco's personal corruption--the abysmal depavity of his moral character--is seen in the pettier examples, not involving suborning or conspiracy. These appear to be deception for its own sake; just Levco being Levco.
One such example involves information that Patrick volunteered to detectives in his intial interviews. In detailing his final visit with Tammy, Patrick recalled that she had mentioned an incident at the Sports Park where she had worked that evening as an umpire. A couple of young men had harassed her by throwing rocks or pebbles at her. She heard them say something implicity threatening, but not directly to her. Tammy was not especially concerned about it.
Detectives interviewed three employees of the Sports Park about the incident (whether to check Patrick's story or to find suspects; it is not known which). The chances of finding somebody who saw the minor incident were slim, because there was no way to know who all was present. But surprisingly, one witness was found who reported that Tammy had indeed experienced a problem with a couple of spectators.
During the trial, however, Levco attempted to obscure the clear and simple truth. He called the two witnesses who had not seen the problem (2138-2178-79). But he deliberately left out the one witness who did see it. The witness, who had to be called later by the defense to correct the deception, testified that two men in the stands had been "aggravating" and "pestering" Tammy at the game (3038-40).The only way the defense knew of the witness was through court-ordered discovery--from the prosecution!
Is there still a chance that this was not a deliberate ploy to obscure the truth? Any such possibility is eliminatd in Levco's closing argument, in which he again asserted that the incident was fabricated. In a display of almost incomprehensible arrogance, he flies in the face of the plain truth, as though the truth is simply whatever he says it is.
What is particularly astonishing about such "small" instances of prosecutorial decption throughout the trial is that they were perpetraed as business-as-usual; as though this is the prosecutor's job. Indeed, the present example was not a crime (unlike the suborned perjuries). It may not even qualify as unethical by the standards of the Bar Association (unlike the instances of eliciting false testimony). But even a child knows that the prosecutor's job is to present the truth, not to obscure it.
They say that power corrupts. It may be more correct to say that power reveals--magnifies--existing character. Corrupt practices are the logical products of corrupt character. It may be incapable of operating within the truth, like some kind of moral allergy.
If on the jury I probably would have voted not guilty based on this one deception by the Levite. Not only does this show deception but it shows that Bradford did not fabricate the story so as to deflect attention away from himself.
ReplyDeleteAlso it would appear that Noffsinger did an admirable job in his defense. It is not easy to spot and counter every deception put forth by an opportunistic prosecutor such as the Levite.
And the fact that Bradford took the stand for one and a half days shows that he did not believe there was anything that he could truthfully say that would damage his defense. (I would need to read the transcript before making further conclusions here) Take the recent case of Jerry Sandusky. He did not take the stand to defend himself and was promptly convicted of dozens of heinous crimes. And we know that O.J. Simpson took the stand in his defense and was promptly set free.
As to the current article in the C&P I believe it was alleged in the new petition that there was new evidence. But administrator Heldt ruled it was not new and was available at the time of the trial. So maybe the question should be whether or not the said evidence is exculpatory or not. And if so why was it not presented at the original trial? If known and presented to the jury is there a good probability that the outcome would have been different? And if so then did Bradford receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
The new evidence mentioned in the article refers to testing and research done by a nationally recognized and published fire scientist with astounding credentials (Douglas Carpenter). He analyzed Jesse Storey's report and ran tests based upon Storey's and his own conclusions and found, without doubt, that the fire had been burning far longer than was determined in 1992. By longer I mean anywhere from half an hour to two hours longer. Significant. He even obtained the original remaining doors from the crime scene and did burn tests with them to determine important burn-through times. Also, a witness was introduced (perhaps one located after the trial, not entirely sure) who smelled smoke an hour or so before Patrick arrived on the scene. I believe this witness lived in a house behind or near the crime scene. A vast majority of the tests used to determine these new conclusions were not available in 1992, however, Indiana is very far behind the times where arson is concerned. They do not recognize fire-data as grounds for re-trial. Also, I'm fairly certain Bradford did claim ineffective counsel at the Hearing--Noffsinger even testified validating this (you don't see that every day)--and still Heldt denies. It's a shame.
ReplyDelete