BREAKING NEWS: NO NEW ASBESTOS TRIAL FOR ROY BRADLEY!
JUDGE LUDINGTON DENIES RECONSIDERATION OF HIS DECISION STRIKING SATAWA'S DECEMBER 12 MOTION FOR VERDICT SET ASIDE, NEW TRIAL IN BRADLEY ASBESTOS CASE!
Roy C. Bradley, Sr. (shown in an undated photo at left) just got a mixed bag of news.
US District Judge Thomas L. Ludington issued an order this morning allowing Bradley's court-appointed attorney, Elias Escobedo, to withdraw as his counsel, and granting Southfield-based attorney Mark Satawa the dubious pleasure of representing Bradley. However, Ludington denied Satawa's December 30, 2014 motion for reconsideration of his December 22 order striking Satawa's motion for a verdict set-aside and new trial.
Bradley's federal trial ended December 2 with the contractor being convicted of four counts related to illegal asbestos removal at the Bay City Academy. Gerald A. Essex, Bradley's co-defendant and crew foreman, was acquitted on the same four charges.
Bradley's general contracting business, Lasting Impressions, was hired by Steven J. Ingersoll to renovate a former church at 400 N. Madison Avenue in Bay City and convert it into a school building for Ingersoll's owned-and-operated Bay City Academy.
The jury found that Bradley "failed to remove asbestos before beginning to demolish and renovate the building, failed to adequately wet and keep wet asbestos until proper disposal, failed to ensure that a person trained in the proper procedures for handling asbestos was on-site when asbestos was disturbed, and failed to ensure that asbestos-containing waste was disposed of properly," according to U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade.
However, in addition to the good-ish news, there were a couple film noir twists: Ludington denied Satawa's December 30, 2014 motion for reconsideration of Ludington's December 22 decision to strike Satawa's motion for a new trial as an unauthorized filing.
On December 12, 2014, Satawa filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 on behalf of Bradley. Although Mr. Satawa had submitted a stipulation for a proposed substitution, Ludington had not approved the stipulation and therefore Satawa did not represent Bradley. Accordingly, Ludington struck the motion as an unauthorized filing.
On December 30, 2014, Satawa filed a motion for reconsideration of Ludinton's December 22, 2014 order striking his Rule 33 motion and rejecting the stipulation to substitute counsel.
With respect to his stricken December 12 motion, Satawa explained that he had filed the motion before consulting with Mr. Escobedo and had instead “relied on information provided by Bradley and counsel for Steven Ingersoll.”
Satawa revealed that “he had spoken with Bradley regarding one disadvantage of filing the Rule 33 motion—that Bradley may be waiving the attorney-client confidentiality with respect to any
discussions that Bradley had with Mr. Escobedo regarding trial preparation and strategy.”
Ludington also ordered Bradley to file an “ex parte supplement to the original financial affidavit he filed with his request for appointed counsel” in the upcoming Ingersoll fraud case.
Ludington directed Bradley that the supplemental financial affidavit should be under seal on or before February 16, 2015.
Any bets Bradley pulls a rabbit out of his magic hat?