Written by an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility:
"On March 16, 2013, I witnessed the following...
Patrick Bradford (Brad), was out on the prison rec yard, where he saw a crippled guy named Oscar--a Mexican about 5 feet tall--being physically bullied.
You have to understand, one thing you just don't do in prison is get involved in someone else's "beef". You just look away and keep walking, which is what everyone else was doing.
But Brad just walked right up to the guy and asked what his problem was with Oscar. The bully was not little: a white guy almost as tall as Brad and heavier. He had a hard look, with all the tattoos and the skinhead. Most people know Brad can take care of himself, but this a dangerous move no matter who you are. Things got real quiet like they do when something bad is about to break off.
The white guy got mouthy for a minute and then started to walk away. But as he was going, he took a weapon out of his pocket and showed it to Brad, like to intimidate him. The weapon was a padlock on the end of a custom-sewn strap; pretty dangerous. But Brad smiled and told him to be sure to bring that with him if he comes back.
And the guy did come back--after some white gang members sent him back "on a mission". This is where it gets really strange. The guy got to talking really tough, and Brad was as cool as I've ever seen anybody in a situation that dangerous. While the guy was putting on a show for the onlookers, Brad was half-smiling, talking real calm. He was warning the guy that this won't be as easy with somebody who can walk.
The bully was pulling a "check-in-move". He was playing it out in the open, hoping to get in a few good shots with the lock before the guards got there to end the whole thing with pepper spray and take them both to lock-up.
But Brad wasn't afraid of the lock, and he saw the check-in move a mile off. He called him on the check-in move and invited him to a blind spot to finish the business (kind of like a prison double-dog-dare).
This broke the bully for good, and he gave up the show, along with his dignity. You could tell Brad wasn't all the way satisfied with that, but he let it end without a fight.
And then it got stranger. A couple of days later, after the prison officials heard all about it (they always do), they pulled Brad in to ask why he stepped in to defend the little crippled guy. And they leaned on him a little with vague threats to discourage him from doing it again. I don't think he was all the way convinced though.
It's a weird world in here.
Very Anonymous
3/24/13
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
Instructions to View Oral Arguments Online (3-26)
Live Webcast of Oral Arguments (Glenn Patrick Bradford v. State of Indiana) tomorrow, March 26th, at 10:00 Eastern time, 9:00 AM Central.
Click this link to be directed to the online Oral Arguments archive.http://mycourts.in.gov/
The link to view the live webcast will be available 2 minutes prior to the start of the arguments. If you can't watch live, the link will be available in the archive two hours later.
PLEASE WATCH THIS AND EDUCATE YOURSELF!
Click this link to be directed to the online Oral Arguments archive.http://mycourts.in.gov/
The link to view the live webcast will be available 2 minutes prior to the start of the arguments. If you can't watch live, the link will be available in the archive two hours later.
PLEASE WATCH THIS AND EDUCATE YOURSELF!
Friday, March 22, 2013
UPDATE 3-22-13
As noted in the last "Update", the scheduling of oral arguments for a PCR in the Indiana Court of Appeals is "unusual," not to mention the fact that the Order for Oral Argument was issued before the panel judges would customarily even be familiar with the content of the briefs.
But "unusual" may not be the best way to characterize it; perhaps "suspicious" is more appropriate. Restore the Truth has learned that the judicial panel that will decide the case includes none other than Randall Shepard, the very recently retired Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.
Shepard's retirement in advance of this appeal had been seen as quite fortuitous. Before this, there was little hope of a successful result at the state level. This was not only because of his well-known political ties to Evansville's power-elite. It also had to do with a judicial culture that prevailed in the state under Shepard. This new development calls the whole enterprise for Truth into question again.
In the final years of Shepard's tenure, he began to adopt symbolic projects aimed at defining his legacy as that of a modernizer (his close colleague Carl Heldt being appointed to chair one of them). But this can hardly be an accurate legacy, given that it was under the long reign of Shepard himself that the culture of the Court came to be in such need of modernizing.
This question of the larger culture of the Shepard Court is well-illustrated in the specific legal issues at play in the Bradford case.
Under Shepard, the Supreme Court consistently maintained a backward attitude toward advances in science and whether new scientific methods should be allowed to shed light on past injustices. Following Shepard's rulings, Indiana judges have routinely and obtusely dismissed new advances in scientific methods as "merely cumulative" (on top of the old junk science that resulted in faulty convictions) and "merely impeaching" (eroding the believability of testimony). This practice was less about establishing Truth than protecting the status quo for prosecutors, and it was exactly what Judge Carl Heldt did in denying Patrick Bradford's PCR in Evansville in 2012.
But Shepard's retirement in 2012 seemed to have freed the courts for immediate, startling change. In a groundbreaking decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals, following the lead of more progressive states, bucked decades of Shepard-era anti-science, finally recognizing the corrective value of scientific advances for past cases (Bunch v. Indiana). Just as in the Bradford case, "Bunch" involved new arson science that demonstrated the error of a past conviction. The Shepard-free Supreme Court summarily endorsed the decision (transfer denied).
But the true import of a groundbreaking case concerns how it will be applied to subsequent cases. Given the apparent culture-shift in the post-Shepard court, it was hoped that the new regard for science would prevail. But that hope has fallen into question.
Senior Judge Shepard, his considerable political influence clearly intact, re-emerges at the center of a most unlikely and peculiarly timed coincidence: he now sits on the panel that will decide whether the groundbreaking case for science will be applied in the enlightened spirit in which it was decided, or effectively destroyed. Whether science will be allowed into the cause of Justice, as it was in the Bunch case, or be excluded, as it was for the long years of the Shepard court.
Granted, it is not known for certain what this suspicious turn of events will produce. It is possible that Senior Judge Shepard will adopt the enlightened view that his retirement seems to have liberated. It is possible that he will abandon the flat-earth anti-science that defined his Court. It is also possible that there are no political motivations afoot in the formation of the judicial panel. Anything is possible.
But there will be no question left after the Appeals Court rules. It will rule either for or against science; for or against progress; for or against Truth.
But "unusual" may not be the best way to characterize it; perhaps "suspicious" is more appropriate. Restore the Truth has learned that the judicial panel that will decide the case includes none other than Randall Shepard, the very recently retired Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.
Shepard's retirement in advance of this appeal had been seen as quite fortuitous. Before this, there was little hope of a successful result at the state level. This was not only because of his well-known political ties to Evansville's power-elite. It also had to do with a judicial culture that prevailed in the state under Shepard. This new development calls the whole enterprise for Truth into question again.
In the final years of Shepard's tenure, he began to adopt symbolic projects aimed at defining his legacy as that of a modernizer (his close colleague Carl Heldt being appointed to chair one of them). But this can hardly be an accurate legacy, given that it was under the long reign of Shepard himself that the culture of the Court came to be in such need of modernizing.
This question of the larger culture of the Shepard Court is well-illustrated in the specific legal issues at play in the Bradford case.
Under Shepard, the Supreme Court consistently maintained a backward attitude toward advances in science and whether new scientific methods should be allowed to shed light on past injustices. Following Shepard's rulings, Indiana judges have routinely and obtusely dismissed new advances in scientific methods as "merely cumulative" (on top of the old junk science that resulted in faulty convictions) and "merely impeaching" (eroding the believability of testimony). This practice was less about establishing Truth than protecting the status quo for prosecutors, and it was exactly what Judge Carl Heldt did in denying Patrick Bradford's PCR in Evansville in 2012.
But Shepard's retirement in 2012 seemed to have freed the courts for immediate, startling change. In a groundbreaking decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals, following the lead of more progressive states, bucked decades of Shepard-era anti-science, finally recognizing the corrective value of scientific advances for past cases (Bunch v. Indiana). Just as in the Bradford case, "Bunch" involved new arson science that demonstrated the error of a past conviction. The Shepard-free Supreme Court summarily endorsed the decision (transfer denied).
But the true import of a groundbreaking case concerns how it will be applied to subsequent cases. Given the apparent culture-shift in the post-Shepard court, it was hoped that the new regard for science would prevail. But that hope has fallen into question.
Senior Judge Shepard, his considerable political influence clearly intact, re-emerges at the center of a most unlikely and peculiarly timed coincidence: he now sits on the panel that will decide whether the groundbreaking case for science will be applied in the enlightened spirit in which it was decided, or effectively destroyed. Whether science will be allowed into the cause of Justice, as it was in the Bunch case, or be excluded, as it was for the long years of the Shepard court.
Granted, it is not known for certain what this suspicious turn of events will produce. It is possible that Senior Judge Shepard will adopt the enlightened view that his retirement seems to have liberated. It is possible that he will abandon the flat-earth anti-science that defined his Court. It is also possible that there are no political motivations afoot in the formation of the judicial panel. Anything is possible.
But there will be no question left after the Appeals Court rules. It will rule either for or against science; for or against progress; for or against Truth.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
UPDATE 3-14-13
On February 28, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered oral arguments to be held on March 26, 2013 at 10:00AM. This is an unusual development in that a.) very few PCR cases go to oral argument and b.) the speed at which the Court is acting is virtually unprecedented.
1.) Arguments will be conducted in the Indiana Court of Appeals courtroom, Statehouse Room 413
2.) The argument is scheduled for webcast at www.IN.gov/judiciary; http://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/
3.) Each side will be allotted 20 minutes for argument, after which the panel of judges will ask questions.
4.) The scheduled panel members are Judges: Riley, Vaidik, and Sr. Judge Shepard
5.) The contact person for the Court is Martin DeAgostino (317) 234-4859
***Please tune into the webcast and share the information.
1.) Arguments will be conducted in the Indiana Court of Appeals courtroom, Statehouse Room 413
2.) The argument is scheduled for webcast at www.IN.gov/judiciary; http://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/
3.) Each side will be allotted 20 minutes for argument, after which the panel of judges will ask questions.
4.) The scheduled panel members are Judges: Riley, Vaidik, and Sr. Judge Shepard
5.) The contact person for the Court is Martin DeAgostino (317) 234-4859
***Please tune into the webcast and share the information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)