DOVER, Del. - The case of a Sussex County pediatrician convicted of sexually abusing young patients at his office is heading to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The appeal for Earl Bradley centers on a 2009 police search of his former medical office near Lewes.
Public defenders Robert Goff and Nicole Walker argued Delaware State Police exceeded their authority by searching places and things at Bradley's office not listed on a search warrant, according to an opening brief filed March 5, 2012.
Defense attorneys said the warrant limited police to two buildings in search of medical files for eight patients, the records said. Instead, officers entered all four buildings on site and conducted a general search, the attorneys said.
The defense said police had no right to collect digital devices, including computer thumb drives containing video of sexual abuse, because the warrant limited officers to medical files they had already collected.
Public defenders used similar arguments in attempt to toss some of the video evidence before Bradley's one day bench trial. Superior Court Judge William Carpenter allowed the evidence to stay and eventually found Bradley guilty on all charges.
The Delaware Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the appeal; prosecutors must file a response by April 4, said spokesman Jason Miller.
Bradley is currently serving 14 life sentences and 164 years for sexually abusing young patients at the office.
Thomas Reed, professor emeritus at the Widener University School of Law, said defense attorneys are using the only argument they have.
"Judging by the conduct of the bench trial, there were no other errors of consequence committed," Reed said.
Prosecutors are likely to make the argument of "inevitable discovery," said Reed. Then, the justices would have to decide if the evidence should be allowed to stay because it would eventually be discovered, even if the search was illegal, Reed explained.
"What's really here is whether discovery by means of an illegal search should somehow be excused because all they had to do was go to the Justice of the Peace court and get a warrant," said Reed. "They would have gotten it anyway."
The law professor said defense attorneys make a serious case, noting police testified to entering the additional buildings at Bradley's site without waiting for guidance from a deputy attorney general already heading to the scene.
In their appeal, defense attorneys also claim the search warrant was defective because it failed to allege facts to support a search for items outside the doctor's office; however, Reed said the scope of the warrant is a larger issue for the court to tackle.
The case will likely be assigned to a panel of three of the court's five justices, Reed said. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that all five justices would hear the case. In the end, Reed said one of two outcomes is likely.
"It's either to affirm or reverse and remand for new proceedings," Reed said.
Reed said a new trial could be a large blow to the prosecution. The state did not enter all of the video evidence during Bradley's trial; it's unclear if the evidence was not as strong as the other videos or if prosecutors were saving the videos as backup for the possibility of a new trial.
If the Supreme Court ordered some of the video evidence tossed, Reed speculated that prosecutors would have to rethink their strategy or even consider putting former patients on the stand.
Based on scheduling, arguments could begin in May or June but Reed said the justices would probably not hear the case until later in the summer.
No comments:
Post a Comment