State v. Bradley
0912011155
Del. Super. Ct.May 18, 2017Background
- Earl Bradley, a former pediatrician, was indicted in 2010 on multiple sexual-offense counts; after waiving a jury he was convicted in 2011 of numerous counts (including first-degree rape) and sentenced to multiple life terms and lengthy additional confinement.
- Bradley challenged the search warrant and the scope of searches; the trial court denied suppression after an evidentiary hearing and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial on direct appeal.
- Bradley filed a pro se first Rule 61 postconviction motion (appointed counsel Collins and Roop); the trial court denied relief and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed; Bradley sought substitute counsel and was denied.
- Bradley filed a pro se second (and related third) postconviction motion raising 24 claims: principally ineffective assistance of counsel (trial, appellate, and postconviction), Fourth and Fifth Amendment search- and particularity-related claims, alleged judicial bias, jurisdictional defects, and procedural errors (staleness, Franks allegations, confrontation, speedy trial, right to self-representation, jury waiver competence).
- The Superior Court found the second motion was a successive Rule 61 filing and dismissed it under Rule 61(d)(2) because Bradley did not plead particularized new evidence of actual innocence nor a new retroactive rule of constitutional law; the court alternatively found the motion untimely or procedurally barred on other Rule 61 grounds.
- Bradley’s motion for the judge’s recusal was denied after the court applied the Los two-part test and found no subjective bias or objective appearance of partiality; the court emphasized Bradley’s recorded admissions of the criminal acts and lack of remorse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Successive-motion bar under Rule 61(d)(2) | Bradley contends many new issues/claims justify relief and contend counsel was ineffective for not raising them earlier | State argues Bradley's motion is successive and fails to plead new evidence of innocence or a new retroactive rule | Court: Dismissed under Rule 61(d)(2); Bradley failed to meet either exception |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial/appellate/postconviction) | Collins/Roop and other counsel omitted meritorious claims and violated professional duties; counsel failed to pursue search-related and reargument issues | State: prior counsel representation was adequate; these claims were previously adjudicated or waived and do not evade Rule 61 bars | Court: Claims are vague, formerly adjudicated or procedurally barred; do not excuse successive-motion bar |
| Fourth Amendment/search warrant scope & particularity (including Wheeler, Franks contentions) | Bradley alleges warrant was stale, overbroad, omitted exculpatory/critical facts, and officers exceeded scope; challenges to institutional search policies | State: Warrant affidavit supported probable cause; issues previously litigated and affirmed on appeal; no new retroactive rule | Court: Issues were formerly adjudicated; successive-motion bar applies; substantive challenges insufficient to reopen collateral review |
| Judicial recusal | Bradley alleges judicial bias and requests the trial judge be disqualified | State: No cognizable evidence of bias; rulings and affirmances by higher courts undercut appearance of partiality | Court: Recusal denied under Los test — judge subjectively unbiased and no objective appearance of partiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (warrant particularity and scope principles)
- Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2004) (search-warrant and particularity considerations in digital-search contexts)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1987) (good-faith and mistaken-locus searches under warrants)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1967) (nexus requirement between place searched and items sought)
- Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282 (Del. 2016) (Delaware precedent addressing warrant particularity and digital searches)
- Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381 (Del. 1991) (two-part recusal test: subjective and objective impartiality)
- State v. Bradley, 135 A.3d 748 (Del. 2016) (Delaware Supreme Court opinion affirming prior rulings in Bradley's appeals)