Jury Duty - Page 2

dlb · March 22nd, 2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

dlb,
Did Delagarza receive any leniency for her testimony?

I got the impression, though it was never said directly, that if Delagarza was able to convince the jury of Bradsher's guilt, she would be sentenced as if she had only done what she said she had done. Otherwise, the whole $19K falls on her.

Yeah, LBF, Bradsher was a rough character. She looked like she rode into court on the underside of a Harley. Delagarza was no princess, either. She was about 6'4" and 400 lbs. I've had smaller cars.

Nighthawk · March 22nd, 2007, 05:42 PM

That's cool the ADA called you for a follow up. When I had jury duty a few years ago, I was shocked at what a pleasant and heartening experience it was. I had the stereotype that it was a big waste of time, and I was just a number, but the judge, the DA, and even the defense counsel reminded us all constantly of our value and how much it meant to them for us to give up our lives to assist. I actually believe them. The DA, even though the case was settled, chased us all down after the trial and shook each jurors hand and thanked us for our time. It was touching, and a positive experience.

dlb · March 22nd, 2007, 06:12 PM

Smart salespeople always find out why they lost. This ADA was very personable and her expressions during testimony offered a little extra entertainment. The defense council was all business and knew her strengths. She pounded the lack of evidence from start to finish, and did what she could to undermince Delagarza.

Also, it was painful to watch the ADA's cross examination of Bradsher (I was surprised her attorney let her take the stand). It was one of those, "Lord, god, I'm glad that's not me in that chair" experiences.

Grandstander · March 23rd, 2007, 07:03 AM

Yeah, LBF, Bradsher was a rough character. She looked like she rode into court on the underside of a Harley

Well, hell, dlb, you held back with important evidence in your original account of the facts of the case, you didn't tell us that the defendant was blue collar trash. Now that I know, then of course I change my vote to guilty. Even if she didn't mastermind this robbery, she sure as hell has done something to deserve prison. And you guys let her walk, no wonder criminals run this country.

Actually....it falls below the standard of proof needed to find this woman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the business from 2005 with her son opening the safe and her making good the losses, that certainly makes one suspect that Bradsher was running the same scam twice. She sets things up for a confederate to do the actual robbery and she gets the lion's share without the risk of getting caught in the act. The first time it was her son, the second time it was her co-worker. The first time, the son did get caught and she was able to distance herself and appear to be honest by making the restitution, which in this case cost her nothing since it would have been a matter of her returning the stolen money, not paying out of her own pocket. The second time she waits until she is out of town so that she appears unconnected.

That's what I think probably happened. Unfortunately, the prosecution was unable to produce supporting evidence for this and under our law, people are not convicted for "probably."

Was there more information presented concerning the 2005 robbery? Was it the defendant's contention that she was paying the money back out of her own pocket rather than simply recovering the stolen cash? If so, that raises the question of why she would feel obligated to make restitution if her son was not the robber. Or was it represented that the restitution was returning the stolen money? In that case, that is an admission that her son took it. If her son did take it and she knew this, and her response was to treat it like a broken window..."He' sorry his baseball got away, here is $75.00 to replace it"....that shows me that she doesn't view her son's criminal inclinations as very serious. She bought him out of trouble rather than letting him learn his lesson.

dlb · March 23rd, 2007, 08:13 AM

She claimed that she borrowed against her mother's credit card to repay the $4K. No contradictory evidence was brought forward.

I agree that Bradsher looked suspicious. As I told the ADA, if the burden of proof had been on Bradsher, she would be in prison today.

Grandstander · March 23rd, 2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlb

She claimed that she borrowed against her mother's credit card to repay the $4K. No contradictory evidence was brought forward.

I agree that Bradsher looked suspicious. As I told the ADA, if the burden of proof had been on Bradsher, she would be in prison today.

On cross examination, was she asked why she felt obligated to repay the money?

LongtimeBravesFan · March 23rd, 2007, 08:58 AM

Did she produce evidence that she did borrow on the credit card?

GS-I suppose the fact the other woman was overweight made her more likely to have been guilty than the trailer trash woman.

Nocahoma · March 23rd, 2007, 10:51 AM

Grandy,
I would suspect that it was desire to keep her son out of jail, although I have to acknowledge an equal likelihood that she "worked the same scam twice," as you said.

dlb,
You staying mum on the County this was in?

LongtimeBravesFan · March 23rd, 2007, 01:22 PM

I did a google search on Patricia Bradsher and came across this.

Scroll down to renewals for November 5, 2005.

LongtimeBravesFan · March 23rd, 2007, 01:25 PM

I just did a google search on the other woman and came across this item.

dlb · March 23rd, 2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

On cross examination, was she asked why she felt obligated to repay the money?

The company agreed not to press charges if she paid the loss. She said, "An' since he was jus' a l'il young'un - well not little, he was 16 - I tried to keep him out of trouble."

dlb · March 23rd, 2007, 03:15 PM

I don't think the locksmith is the same Patricia Bradsher. The defendant was living with her boyfriend. The renewals list Robert Bradsher right below Patricia.

One other thing I forgot to mention - Delagarza was given two opportunities to wear a wire by the SBI, and refused on both occasions. In her testimony, she said it was because in a prior conversation, Bradsher had accused her of wearing a wire.

Grandstander · March 23rd, 2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlb

The company agreed not to press charges if she paid the loss. She said, "An' since he was jus' a l'il young'un - well not little, he was 16 - I tried to keep him out of trouble."

Then her offer must be taken as her admission of knowlege of her son' guilt. It then follows that she was not "paying the loss", she was returning the stolen money. And the reason she was doing so was because her son got caught.

Your first post mentioned that she had reported the theft and the cameras recorded her son opening it. Was she asked how her son came to have the combination to the safe?

dlb · March 23rd, 2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Was she asked how her son came to have the combination to the safe?

Pattie was a very sloppy manager. The safe was often "dummy locked" - everything was closed by the locking mechanism had not been tripped - allowing anyone to open the safe by just pulling the lever. Plus, when she left town, she left the combination written on a piece of paper, for use by the employee who would have to make the deposits.

Does it sound suspicious? Very. However, there was other evidence to indicate that Pattie was just a sloppy, disorganized person. Again, we couldn't prove that it was all part of a plot. It just looked bad.

Grandstander · March 23rd, 2007, 04:36 PM

The safe was often "dummy locked" - everything was closed by the locking mechanism had not been tripped - allowing anyone to open the safe by just pulling the lever.
Sort of defeats the entire idea of a "safe", doesn't it?

However, there was other evidence to indicate that Pattie was just a sloppy, disorganized person.
I gather the region does not suffer a surfeit of persons more obvioulsy qualified than this woman and willing to take the job. This company was settling for retaining an employee who was sloppy, disorganized and had a larcenous sixteen year old son. And she was the manager.

March 22nd, 2007, 05:42 PM	#17 (permalink)
Nighthawk Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 2,716	That's cool the ADA called you for a follow up. When I had jury duty a few years ago, I was shocked at what a pleasant and heartening experience it was. I had the stereotype that it was a big waste of time, and I was just a number, but the judge, the DA, and even the defense counsel reminded us all constantly of our value and how much it meant to them for us to give up our lives to assist. I actually believe them. The DA, even though the case was settled, chased us all down after the trial and shook each jurors hand and thanked us for our time. It was touching, and a positive experience. __________________ "Whenever the word 'fair' features so prominently in legislation, the odds are that it is economically illiterate" -Rich Lowery What am I doing with your tax money? Sustaining the realm according to caprice.

March 23rd, 2007, 07:03 AM	#19 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,616	Yeah, LBF, Bradsher was a rough character. She looked like she rode into court on the underside of a Harley Well, hell, dlb, you held back with important evidence in your original account of the facts of the case, you didn't tell us that the defendant was blue collar trash. Now that I know, then of course I change my vote to guilty. Even if she didn't mastermind this robbery, she sure as hell has done something to deserve prison. And you guys let her walk, no wonder criminals run this country. Actually....it falls below the standard of proof needed to find this woman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the business from 2005 with her son opening the safe and her making good the losses, that certainly makes one suspect that Bradsher was running the same scam twice. She sets things up for a confederate to do the actual robbery and she gets the lion's share without the risk of getting caught in the act. The first time it was her son, the second time it was her co-worker. The first time, the son did get caught and she was able to distance herself and appear to be honest by making the restitution, which in this case cost her nothing since it would have been a matter of her returning the stolen money, not paying out of her own pocket. The second time she waits until she is out of town so that she appears unconnected. That's what I think probably happened. Unfortunately, the prosecution was unable to produce supporting evidence for this and under our law, people are not convicted for "probably." Was there more information presented concerning the 2005 robbery? Was it the defendant's contention that she was paying the money back out of her own pocket rather than simply recovering the stolen cash? If so, that raises the question of why she would feel obligated to make restitution if her son was not the robber. Or was it represented that the restitution was returning the stolen money? In that case, that is an admission that her son took it. If her son did take it and she knew this, and her response was to treat it like a broken window..."He' sorry his baseball got away, here is $75.00 to replace it"....that shows me that she doesn't view her son's criminal inclinations as very serious. She bought him out of trouble rather than letting him learn his lesson. Last edited by Grandstander; March 23rd, 2007 at 08:02 AM.

March 22nd, 2007, 06:12 PM	#18 (permalink)
dlb Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,511	Smart salespeople always find out why they lost. This ADA was very personable and her expressions during testimony offered a little extra entertainment. The defense council was all business and knew her strengths. She pounded the lack of evidence from start to finish, and did what she could to undermince Delagarza. Also, it was painful to watch the ADA's cross examination of Bradsher (I was surprised her attorney let her take the stand). It was one of those, "Lord, god, I'm glad that's not me in that chair" experiences.

March 23rd, 2007, 08:13 AM	#20 (permalink)
dlb Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,511	She claimed that she borrowed against her mother's credit card to repay the $4K. No contradictory evidence was brought forward. I agree that Bradsher looked suspicious. As I told the ADA, if the burden of proof had been on Bradsher, she would be in prison today.

March 23rd, 2007, 08:58 AM	#22 (permalink)
LongtimeBravesFan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,660	Did she produce evidence that she did borrow on the credit card? GS-I suppose the fact the other woman was overweight made her more likely to have been guilty than the trailer trash woman.

March 23rd, 2007, 10:51 AM	#23 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	Grandy, I would suspect that it was desire to keep her son out of jail, although I have to acknowledge an equal likelihood that she "worked the same scam twice," as you said. dlb, You staying mum on the County this was in?

March 23rd, 2007, 01:22 PM	#24 (permalink)
LongtimeBravesFan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,660	I did a google search on Patricia Bradsher and came across this. Scroll down to renewals for November 5, 2005.

March 23rd, 2007, 01:25 PM	#25 (permalink)
LongtimeBravesFan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,660	I just did a google search on the other woman and came across this item.

March 23rd, 2007, 03:15 PM	#27 (permalink)
dlb Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,511	I don't think the locksmith is the same Patricia Bradsher. The defendant was living with her boyfriend. The renewals list Robert Bradsher right below Patricia. One other thing I forgot to mention - Delagarza was given two opportunities to wear a wire by the SBI, and refused on both occasions. In her testimony, she said it was because in a prior conversation, Bradsher had accused her of wearing a wire.

March 23rd, 2007, 04:36 PM	#30 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,616	The safe was often "dummy locked" - everything was closed by the locking mechanism had not been tripped - allowing anyone to open the safe by just pulling the lever. Sort of defeats the entire idea of a "safe", doesn't it? However, there was other evidence to indicate that Pattie was just a sloppy, disorganized person. I gather the region does not suffer a surfeit of persons more obvioulsy qualified than this woman and willing to take the job. This company was settling for retaining an employee who was sloppy, disorganized and had a larcenous sixteen year old son. And she was the manager.