Very shortly after Patrick Bradford's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was denied, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of one Kristine Bunch in an arson case with several very similar issues. The Court found that new, reliable scientific findings and methods should qualify as newly discovered evidence where older, debunked methods had contributed to a conviction.
Although it sounds like common sense, this was a groundbreaking decision in Indiana, where similar arguments have routinely been rejected, as Judge Carl Heldt demonstrated just a week earlier in Patrick's case. And so there was reason for hope, because the Bunch case set a valuable precedent for Patrick's appeal.
However, precisely because the new decision was groundbreaking, that hope was tempered with a strong likelihood that it would be reversed by the Indiana Supreme Court. But that high Court, with a new Chief Justice, has chosen to let the precedent stand, refusing even to hear the State Attorney General's argument against it (Petition for Transfer: Denied).
Patrick's appeal brief will be filed by September 12, 2012, after which the State will file its answer, and Patrick will be allowed a Response. There is no way to know how long a final decision will take.
No comments:
Post a Comment