Ted Bradford

• Alibi

● Coworker testified he was at work, wife testified about picking him up from work that day

• Confession
• Eyewitness

• Non-victim

● Rape was between 9 and 10am on Sept. 29. ● Entered through basement window ● Victim was short, had light-colored hair, not fully clothed ● Assault in area in downstairs not a room ● Victim was turned away from attacker during assault, cuffed behind back, and nylon stocking covered culprit’s face BUT ● Inconsistencies included that he entered through window on the east side of house. ● That no one else was in the house (there was a baby).

“Q. Did you ever feed him any information regarding that sexual assault…? A. Not in reference to the sexual assault… Q. Did you tell the defendant how the handcuffs were used? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you tell the defendant anything about the placement of the victim’s body during the sexual assault? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you tell the defendant that there was a nylon stocking covering the head and face of the perpetrator? A. No, I did not.”

In closing arguments: “Only the man who was there would know that the victim was turned away during the entire time of the attack. That the man was wearing a white nylon. That handcuffs were utilized, that entry was made through the basement window…” These were “details that only the man who was there would know.” “Now, out of fairness to the record, Detective [] testified that he did mention handcuffs… But he did not say how the handcuffs were used.”

• Coerced Confession
• Miranda
• Sentencing — Noncapital
• Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
• State Law Evidence Claim

State v. Bradford, 95 Wash.App. 935, 978 P.2d 534 (1999)