Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Bradshaw sentencing postponed, Gallegos "weighing" decision

Robin Bradshaw sentencing postponed; prosecutors still weighing charging decision
A sentencing hearing for a McKinleyville man accused of killing his wife was postponed Tuesday to allow prosecutors more time to decide how to proceed with the case.

Robin Stuart Bradshaw entered into a plea agreement last December under which he pleaded guilty to a single count of voluntary manslaughter upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion and agreed to lead police to the body of his wife, Monica Bradshaw, which he had buried in an undeveloped area outside McKinleyville some 18 months earlier. He faces a 12-year prison sentence under the agreement.

But that agreement is contingent on forensic pathologist Dr. Mark Super's autopsy examination of the remains finding forensic evidence that corroborates Robin Bradshaw's version of events -- that he struck his wife over the head and shoulders two or three times with a metal bar, but only after she first assaulted him with the weapon.

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos received Super's report last week, but has yet to decide how to proceed with the case. At Tuesday's hearing, Bradshaw's attorney, Peter Martin, said Gallegos had contacted him asking that the sentencing hearing be postponed.

”He wants more time, I believe, to review the medical report and to request supporting materials from the medical examiner,” Martin said.

...At Tuesday's hearing, Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Arnie Klein also tried to pass along a pair of letters -- one of which was reportedly written by Monica Bradshaw's sister, Caroline Sheffield -- to Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Joyce Hinrichs, noting that both were addressed to her and marked “urgent.”

Hinrichs said she couldn't receive the letters, as ex-parte communications cannot be considered by the court and must be entered into a case either through the involved attorneys or the county probation report. Noting that Sheffield may be voicing her unhappiness with the plea agreement in the letter, Hinrichs said she would have her secretary return them, unopened, so they can be resubmitted through the proper channels.

Bradshaw is due to reappear in court May 27 for a status conference, at which point, prosecutors are expected to either proceed with the plea agreement or announce that they will pursue the original murder charge facing Bradshaw.


***
PREVIOUSLY:
DA's office (Paul Gallegos) still undecided in Bradshaw case; Gallegos to talk to pathologist next week May 28, 2010
Bradshaw sentencing postponed, Gallegos "weighing" decision May 5, 2010
...Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos received Super's report last week, but has yet to decide how to proceed with the case. At Tuesday's hearing, Bradshaw's attorney, Peter Martin, said Gallegos had contacted him asking that the sentencing hearing be postponed.

”He wants more time, I believe, to review the medical report and to request supporting materials from the medical examiner,” Martin said....

”It's going to be something Paul's going to have to think about.” April 27, 2010
-- Bradshaw autopsy report with Humboldt County DA; indicates blunt force trauma as cause of death
Autopsy report coming in Bradshaw case; plea agreement hinges on results for McKinleyville man accused of wife's murder APRIL 24, 2010
Bradshaw positively identified; full autopsy report pending more test results FEBRUARY 01, 2010
Autopsy set for Sunday in Bradshaw case JANUARY 23, 2010
ANOTHER PLEA DEAL - Bradshaw agreed to give location of body in plea deal JANUARY 09, 2010
Robin Stuart Bradshaw entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors last month, agreeing to disclose the location of his wife's body and plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter, court records show.
Authorities believe they have found the body of missing McKinleyville woman JANUARY 08, 2010
The person further told investigators, according to the affidavit, that Robin Bradshaw confessed to first burying his wife in a shallow grave in the backyard of his home, only to later dig her body up and bury it on an undeveloped Danco subdivision off of Fieldbrook Road in McKinleyville.
Hearing for McKinleyville murder case continued NOVEMBER 05, 2009
Bradshaw Prelim continued to Nov. 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
Prelim for Robin Stuart Bradshaw JULY 07, 2009
Bradshaw pleads not guilty to murdering wife June 16, 2009
Robin Stuart Bradshaw, arrested JUNE 16, 2009
Second search warrant issued in missing woman case - and a request to seal documents January 29, 2009
Monica Bradshaw: MISSING January 27, 2009

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Three years? He doesn't need more time, he needs instructions from Salzman. Quick, Henry, the polling data . . . . .

Anonymous said...

Gallegos is an incompetent flake.

Please vote for Paul Hagen for DA!!!

Anonymous said...

Bravo for Hinrichs understanding of the ex parte rules!

Some of our local judges do not seem to be aware of those rules.

Anonymous said...

If you understood the law at all you wouldn't say anything so dumb. The victims family isn't a party and a statement to the judge by them is allowed. From what I read it was Last minute. What did it say? Sounded important.

Anonymous said...

So you know more law than Judge Hinrichs? You fatuous ass. First of all, if a person is not a party, they cannot address the court at all. However, victim's statements are permitted per Part I Section 28 of the State Constitution, [Marsy's Law] A victim's statement, like the statement of a party, is allowed, but under the same rules that forbid one-sided "ex parte" statements by parties. Klein could have copied the letter for the defense, or read it aloud, or provided it to probation, but not handed a sealed letter to the judge. Klein should have known this, it's basic stuff. BASIC. Dolt. Poltroon. Fool.

Anonymous said...

Who is the dolt 10:36? You seem to be. My friends at victim witness disagree with you and told me that the judges read victims letters all of the time in court and then make sure both sides have a copy.

Anonymous said...

The letter can be read if the victim is there to say read it. If it's sealed, and the DA doesn't give a copy to the defense, and the victim isn't in court to say it can be disclosed to both sides, the proper course is the one Hinrichs took. I bet your "friends at victim witness" aren't claiming that a judge will reveal a sealed letter without permission.

Anonymous said...

8:26, you don't know shit from shinola. If you think that the letter can only be read if the victim is in court then you have your wittle head up your wittle arse. And yes my friends at VW say the judge will do this and it happens always.

Sheesh, what a maroon you are!

Anonymous said...

Marsy's law says the the victim/family has the right to be heard at all proceedings. All of them! Read it 8:26. It doesn't day they have to be present to have that say. Thanks for pointing me to the law itself to read. Now I suggest you read it and pipe down.

Anonymous said...

Oh man, you are so not going to believe this. I ran a search using the terms, "dolt," "fatuous" and "poltroon," with watchpaul and they are all posts concerning Klien who was the dip shit in court per the TS article when this happened. (I especially liked the one slamming 2 plea deals by Klien back in 2008) Looks like Kien is back on the blogs defending himself and Gallegos. Funny, funny, funny! At least it is not on county time.

Anonymous said...

Can't fix stupid. And you people are solid proof of that. It's simple, and "Marsys's Law" doesn't change the basic rules. A judge who gets a sealed letter from anyone, party or not, is supposed to return it. Unopended. Period. As noted above, if there is nothing on the record saying read it in open court, or give a copy to the defense, it goes back. Period.

Anonymous said...

Yep, I agree 12:27 you are stupid and we can't fix it. Now stop blogging on county time.

Anonymous said...

Stupid to you means, I presume, that when I go to court I follow the rules. You apparently don't go to court much, and don't know the rules. How about you stop blogging until you know what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Crap, there is no use in arguing with a blow hard like 8:30. Ok, lets agree that you won't say you are wrong and just move on.