News‎ > ‎

Denied request for new trial : Game rigged !

posted Feb 19, 2014, 5:29 AM by brunoartpostal   [ updated Feb 20, 2014, 3:00 PM ]
On Friday 14th, 2014, the Indiana court of appeal denied Sarah Pender's request for a new trial based on new evidence.  We have learned that one of the men sitting on the panel reviewing her request was Judge Cale Bradford.  Cale Bradford was a judge at Richard Hull's sentencing and resentencing trial.  He had then already openly stated that he did not believe in Richard Hull's admission that Sarah had nothing to do with the double homicide
 
You can verify the information about Judge Bradford questionable presence on the panel reviewing Sarah's request for a new trial. You can also verify for yourself that the man was indeed actually sitting as judge during Richard hull's 2003 and 2005 appeals.

First read Richard Hull's 2003 appeal  and see who was the judge : "The honorable Cale J.  Bradford"
 
Then read Richard Hull's 2005 appeal and see who was the appeal court judge : "The Honorable Cale J.  Bradford" again !  On that occasion, Richard Hull's admission that he set up Sarah Pender with the use of a false letter was considered as perjury.
 
Finally go to the the Indiana Court of Appeal website.  In the "decision & case records" menu, select "court of appeals case search". In the online Docket menu, select "search by litigant's last name", type "pender". In the answers, click then on link : 49 A 04 - 1311 - SP - 00551.  At the bottom of that page, amond the names of the judges who took the decision, You'll find the abbreviated name "C.J., Bradfor" so yet again the "honorable judge Cale J. Bradford" !!! 
 
We express outrage at this obvious conflict of interest.  Having worked on the case on several occasions and having always sung the party line on the case, Judge Bradford should never have sat on this panel.   The game was rigged from the very minute a request was filed for a new trial.
 
For an appeal in which new elements have surfaced, we need a judge with a fresh pair of eyes, not someone who's mind is already made up ! The Indiana Court of Appeal "has failed to establish a reasonable possibility" that it is capable of impartiality in the Pender case.

We demand a fair review of Sarah Jo's request for a new trial. 
We demand professional integrity from the men and women sitting on the panel reviewing her request.
We demand absolute impartiality from the Indiana Court of Appeal.
Comments