Bradds & Hill v. Warden Randolph

Panel: Nazarian, Leahy, Peter B. Krauser (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Nazarian, J. ⁵² I've got clean away but I'll be back some day, just the combination will have changed Someday they'll catch me, to a chain they'll attach me, but 'til that day I'll ride the old crime wave And if they try to hold me for trial, I'll stay out of jail by paying my bail And after I'll go to the court of appeal saying "You've done me wrong," it's the same old song forever. 1 We start with first principles: people who have been arrested are presumptively innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and normally should be released pending trial, subject to appropriate conditions, unless they pose flight risks or danger to the public. As a cultural matter, though, we tend to shorthand pretrial release conditions with the term "bail," and to assume that release requires some sort of payment or financial commitment. We have learned over time that when courts rely primarily or overwhelmingly on financial pretrial release conditions, many defendants remain incarcerated when they shouldn't, merely because they can't ⁵³ post cash or a bond (while wealthier defendants, who might be just as dangerous or pose equal flight risks, can secure their freedom with money).

And beyond the obvious deprivations of liberty, overreliance on financial conditions places lower-income people at a disadvantage in defending their cases and distorts their calculus as they consider whether to plead guilty or go to trial. In 2017, the Court of Appeals's Standing Committee on Rules and Procedure recommended revisions to the Maryland Rules governing pretrial release. The Court of ⁴⁴⁶ Appeals adopted the revisions with amendments, and thus went into effect on (and apply to all actions commenced on or after) July 1, 2017. Stated generally, the new Rules directed trial courts to detain defendants who pose flight risks or who are dangerous, and to release everyone else subject to non-financial conditions, except as a last resort.

Even then, though, the Rules require courts to take the defendant's financial circumstances into account and prohibit financial conditions a defendant has no hope of meeting. The appellants in these consolidated cases are criminal defendants who filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City after the District Court ordered them held in lieu of bonds that, they say, they cannot afford. The appellants argue that the habeas court erred in denying the petitions and that the bonds set for them violated the revised Maryland Rules. The State agrees that the court should at least have held a hearing before denying the habeas petitions and asks that we vacate the denials and remand for a hearing.

After argument in this Court on June 11, 2018, we issued an order reversing the judgments and remanding both cases to the circuit court with directions to grant the petitions for writs of habeas corpus and to order new bail reviews pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-216.1, and we directed the mandate to issue forthwith. In this opinion, we explain our decision. ⁵⁴ I. BACKGROUND A. The Maryland Rules Governing Bail Review. 1. Before: The Old Rule 4-216 The Maryland Rules long have recognized that decisions about whether and on what terms to release defendants before trial are discretionary, and courts have always had broad authority to impose appropriate conditions. Before July 1, 2017, Rule 4-216 provided generally that defendants were entitled to release on personal recognizance or on bail, with or without conditions, unless the court determined that no condition would ensure his or her appearance or safeguard the public.

The Rule directed judicial officers to consider a variety of factors, required them to impose the least onerous conditions that would ensure the defendant's appearance and protect the public, and authorized them to place defendants under supervision, restrict their movement, set bond, or to impose other appropriate conditions: c) Defendants eligible for release by commissioner or judge. In accordance with this Rule and Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §§ 5-101 and 5-201 and except as otherwise provided in section (d) of this Rule or by Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §§ 5-201 and 5-202, a defendant is entitled to be released before verdict on personal recognizance or on bail, in either case with or without conditions imposed, unless the judicial officer determines that no condition of release will reasonably ensure (1) the appearance of the defendant as required and (2) the safety of the alleged victim, another person, and the community. * * * e) Duties of judicial officer. (1) Consideration of factors. In determining whether a defendant should be released and the conditions of release, the judicial officer shall take into account the following information, to the extent available: (A) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the nature of the evidence against the defendant, and the potential sentence upon conviction; ⁵⁵ (B) the defendant's prior record of appearance at court proceedings or ⁴⁴⁷ flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at court proceedings; (C) the defendant's family ties, employment status and history, financial resources, reputation, character and mental condition, length of residence in the community, and length of residence in this State; (D) any recommendation of an agency that conducts pretrial release investigations; (E) any recommendation of the State's Attorney; (F) any information presented by the defendant or defendant's attorney; (G) the danger of the defendant to the alleged victim, another person, or the community; (H) the danger of the defendant to him or herself; (I) any other factor bearing on the risk of a willful failure to appear and the safety of the alleged victim, another person, or the community, including all prior convictions and any prior adjudications of delinquency that occurred within three years of the date the defendant is charged as an adult.

(2) Statement of reasons - When required. Upon determining to release a defendant to whom section (c) of this Rule applies or to refuse to release a defendant to whom section (b) of this Rule applies, the judicial officer shall state the reasons in writing or on the record. (3) Imposition of conditions of release. If the judicial officer determines that the defendant should be released other than on personal recognizance without any additional conditions imposed, the judicial officer shall impose on the defendant the least onerous condition or combination of conditions of release set out in section (g) of this Rule that will reasonably: (A) ensure the appearance of the defendant as required, (B) protect the safety of the alleged victim by ordering the defendant to have no contact with the alleged victim ⁵⁶ or the alleged victim's premises or place of employment or by other appropriate order, and (C) ensure the defendant will not pose a danger to another person or to the community.

(4) Advice of conditions; consequences of violation; amount and terms of bail. The judicial officer shall advise the defendant in writing or on the record of the conditions of release imposed and of the consequences of a violation of any condition. When bail is required, the judicial officer shall state in writing or on the record the amount and any terms of the bail. f) Conditions of release. The conditions of release imposed by a judicial officer under this rule may include: (1) committing the defendant to the custody of a designated person or organization that agrees to supervise the defendant and assist in ensuring the defendant's appearance in court; (2) placing the defendant under the supervision of a probation officer or other appropriate public official; (3) subjecting the defendant to reasonable restrictions with respect to travel, association, or residence during the period of release; (4) requiring the defendant to post a bail bond complying with Rule 4-217 in an amount and on conditions specified by the judicial officer, including any of the following: (A) without collateral security; (B) with collateral security of the kind specified in Rule 4-217 (e)(1)(A) ⁴⁴⁸ equal in value to the greater of $100.00 or 10% of the full penalty amount, and if the judicial officer sets bail at $2500 or less, the judicial officer shall advise the defendant that the defendant may post a bail bond secured by either a corporate surety or a cash deposit of 10% of the full penalty amount; (C) with collateral security of the kind specified in Rule 4-217 (e)(1)(A) equal in value to a percentage greater than 10% but less than the full penalty amount; ⁵⁷ (D) with collateral security of the kind specified in Rule 4-217 (e)(1) equal in value to the full penalty amount; (E) with the obligation of a corporation that is an insurer or other surety in the full penalty amount; (5) subjecting the defendant to any other condition reasonably necessary to: (A) ensure the appearance of the defendant as required, (B) protect the safety of the alleged victim, and (C) ensure that the defendant will not pose a danger to another person or to the community; and (6) imposing upon the defendant, for good cause shown, one or more of the conditions authorized under Code, Criminal Article, § 9-304 reasonably necessary to stop or prevent the intimidation of a victim or witness s or a violation of Code, Criminal Law Article, § 9-302, 9-303, or 9-305.

Md. Rule 4-216. It shouldn't be, and isn't, surprising that a Rule requiring complex, on-the-fly, multi-factorial, discretionary decisions would lead to a range of results across the thousands of bail review hearings each year across the State. But it emerged over time that a disproportionate number of indigent defendants-disproportionately African-American and Hispanic men 2 -were being held before trial for no reason other than being unable to afford bail, 3 and even though their charges, if proven, often would result solely in fines or less than a year in jail. 4 ⁵⁸ On October 11, 2016, the Maryland Office of the Attorney General issued an advice letter (the "Letter") opining to certain members of the Maryland General Assembly that Rule 4-216, as it was being applied, violated both the due process rights of defendants and the Constitutional prohibition against excessive bail. The Letter contended that it was unconstitutional for judicial officers to "impose a financial condition set solely to detain the defendant," particularly if "pretrial detention is not justified to meet the State's regulatory goals ...." It opined as well that "[c]onditions of pretrial release must instead be the least onerous to reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required, protect the safety of the victim, or ensure ⁴⁴⁹ that the defendant will not pose a danger to another person or the community." If, however, a court found that cash bail was the least onerous means of ensuring a defendant's appearance, the Letter argued that the judicial officer should be required on the record "to conduct an individualized inquiry into a criminal defendant's ability to pay a financial condition of pretrial release." Following this Letter, the Attorney General formally requested the Court of Appeals's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules Committee") to investigate the concerns it expressed in its letter and consider amendments to the Maryland Rules.

The Rules Committee then took up the issue. After a process we will detail next, the Committee voted in favor of recommending the proposed revisions to the Court of Appeals and submitted them to the Court in its 192nd Report (the "Report"). The Report stated that the modified Rule 4-216.1 in particular would "provide clearer guidance to judicial officers regarding the manner in which certain core principles intended to govern decisions regarding the pretrial release of arrested individuals" and help prevent defendants from being "incarcerated, prior to trial, for no reason other than poverty." ⁵⁹ 2. After: Cash Bail Reform and the New Rules.

After receiving the Letter, the Rules Committee assigned the proposed revisions to the Criminal Rules Subcommittee (the "Subcommittee"). The Subcommittee reviewed materials submitted by the Attorney General, 5 the Office of the Public Defender, 6 the bail industry, 7 and other stakeholders, 8 then held a public comment hearing. ^{60 450} The Attorney General urged the Subcommittee (and later the Committee) to recommend the proposed revisions because defendants were being held "in pretrial detention solely because they lack the financial resources to post a monetary bail." He stated that the number of people detained prior to trial had been increasing, and that studies had shown that the financial inability to post bail operated "in a manner inconsistent with State and federal law, ineffective at addressing public safety concerns, disproportionately burdensome to communities of color, and inefficient in its use of State and local resources." He cited studies contending that judicial officers often failed to consider statutorily mandated conditions for pretrial release, including the defendant's "employment status and history" and "financial resources." 9 And, he argued, those ⁶¹ same studies found no relationship between a pretrial detainee's perceived risk and the bond amount set. 10 One study found an inverse relationship between bail amounts and the risk to public safety, that bail was set higher for low-risk defendants than for moderate- and higher-risk defendants. 11 Studies in other jurisdictions with wealth-based pretrial systems found that nearly half of the most dangerous defendants were able to post bail and reenter the community without monitoring or supervision by courts. 12 Conversely, the Attorney General pointed to other jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia, 13 Kentucky, 14 ⁴⁵¹ and Colorado, 15 that focused on pretrial services instead of cash or bond bail. Those systems had higher rates of pretrial release and subsequent court appearances, and the rate of arrests for new criminal activity while on pretrial release decreased. He argued that cash bail systems disproportionately affect people of color, whose median household incomes are the lowest in the country.

And the 2016 Abell Report revealed that pattern in Maryland: corrections ⁶² records from Baltimore City, Prince George's County, and Baltimore County revealed that African-American males comprise the bulk of pretrial detainee populations, and many are being held on small bail amounts: The economic disparities unleashed by the wealth-based bail system fall most heavily on racial minorities. Studies have consistently shown that African-American defendants have higher bond amounts and are detained on bonds at higher rates than white defendants, a factor contributing to the disproportionate confinement of persons of color. In Maryland, African-Americans comprise roughly 30 percent of the general population but make up 70 percent of prisoners. In Baltimore, African-Americans comprise about 60 percent of the city's residents, but 90 percent of Baltimore jail inmates. 16 The Attorney General also identified collateral harm from excessive cash bail.

Defendants held in pretrial detention risk losing jobs, housing, and even custody of their children. 17 And he argued that the rise in pretrial detention is expensive: pretrial detention costs between $83 and $153 a day per defendant, and a grand total per day of $500,000 to $1,000,000 to Maryland taxpayers for the over 7,000 defendants awaiting trial. 18 The report by the Office of the Public Defender ("OPD") raised similar concerns. 19 OPD analyzed 700,000 criminal cases filed in the District Court of Maryland between 2011 to 2015 and found that during that timeframe, 17,434 defendants were detained on bail amounts of less than $5,000. 20 Defendants who ⁶³ posted bail bonds were obligated to pay the bond premium regardless of the outcome in the case, and were comprised disproportionately of African-Americans and those living in Maryland's poorest zip codes. Over that five-year period, the study concluded, African-American defendants were charged at least $181 million, while defendants of all other races combined were charged $75 million. The report also reiterated other research concluding that secured money bail was no more effective than unsecured bonds at ensuring appearances at trial. 21 Opponents of the proposed rules changes at both meetings offered two primary reasons to reject them. First , opponents contended that reforms to pretrial ⁴⁵² release standards should come from the General Assembly.

Second , opponents argued that the cost of implementing substantive changes would result in substantial costs to the State and counties, and that bail bond companies played important roles in ensuring the appearance of defendants for trial and in apprehending defendants who didn't. They argued as well that financial conditions created opportunities for defendants to be released, and that eliminating or reducing opportunities for financial conditions would result in more defendants being held pending trial. 22 The Subcommittee held a meeting regarding proposed amendments to the cash bail system. The bail industry participated and responded to the proposed amendments at that meeting. The Subcommittee voted to forward the proposed changes to Rule 4-216 to the entire Rules Committee.

The Rules Committee held an open meeting at which the full range of stakeholders appeared and participated. The Rules Committee considered all of the materials and comments and voted to recommend the revisions to the Court of Appeals. In its 192nd Report to the Court, the Committee stated that pretrial release standards have historically fallen within the authority of the Judicial Branch. The Committee ⁶⁴ saw no evidence that "if more defendants were released, there would be more failures to appear." And saving the resources that would otherwise be expended on pretrial incarceration would "result in [ ] substantial savings to the State and the counties that operate and fund the detention centers." The Report outlined the proposed amendments to Rule 4-216 and others, and recommended that the Court adopt a new Rule 4-216.1 that clarified further the standards for pretrial release.

The proposed changes were constructed from language contained in former Rule 4-216, but were reorganized to follow more closely the Pretrial Release Standards adopted by the American Bar Association. After receiving the Report, the Court of Appeals held two open hearings and, with a few changes, accepted the Rules Committee's recommendation. The Court adopted the proposed changes to the Rules on February 17, 2017, to take effect on July 1, 2017. The new Rule 4-216.1 begins by articulating the general principle that defendants should be released-with conditions when necessary, and preferably non-financial conditions-unless the judicial officer finds a reasonable likelihood the defendant won't appear or will be a danger to the community.

In addition, the Rule requires judicial officers to consider the individual circumstances of each defendant 23 and to impose the least onerous conditions necessary: ^{65 453} (b) General Principles. (1) Construction . (A) This Rule is designed to promote the release of defendants on their own recognizance or, when necessary, unsecured bond. Additional conditions should be imposed on release only if the need to ensure appearance at court proceedings, to protect the community, victims, witnesses, or any other person and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process is demonstrated by the circumstances of the individual case.

Preference should be given to additional conditions without financial terms. (B) This Rule shall be construed to permit the release of a defendant pending trial except upon a finding by the judicial officer that, if the defendant is released, there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendant (i) will not appear when required, or (ii) will be a danger to an alleged ⁶⁶ victim, another person, or the community. If such a finding is made, the defendant shall not be released. Cross reference: Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 5-101.

For the inapplicability of the Rules in Title 5 to pretrial release proceedings, see Rule 5-101 (b). (2) Individualized Consideration . A decision by a judicial officer whether or on what conditions to release a defendant shall be based on a consideration of specific facts and circumstances applicable to the particular defendant, including the ability of the defendant to meet a special condition of release with financial terms or comply with a special condition and the facts and circumstances constituting probable cause for the charges. (3) Least Onerous Conditions .

If a judicial officer determines that a defendant should be released other than on personal recognizance or unsecured bond without special conditions, the judicial officer shall impose on the defendant the least onerous condition or combination of conditions of release set forth in section (d) of this Rule that will reasonably ensure (A) the appearance of the defendant, and (B) the safety of each alleged victim, other persons, and the community and may impose a financial condition only in accordance with section (e) of this Rule. (4) Exceptions . Nothing in this Rule is intended to preclude a defendant from being held in custody based on an alleged violation of (A) a condition of pretrial release, a release under Rule 4-349, or an order of probation or parole previously imposed in another case, or (B) a ⁴⁵⁴ condition of pretrial release previously imposed in the instant case. (c) Release on Personal Recognizance or Unsecured Bond.

(1) Generally. Except as otherwise limited by Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 5-101 or § 5-202, unless the judicial officer finds that no permissible non-financial condition attached to a release will reasonably ensure (A) the appearance of the defendant, and (B) the safety of each alleged victim, other persons, or the community, the judicial officer ⁶⁷ shall release a defendant on personal recognizance or unsecured bond, with or without special conditions. If the judicial officer makes such a finding, the judicial officer shall state the basis for it on the record. Cross reference: Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 5-101(c) precludes release on personal recognizance if the defendant is charged with certain crimes.

Section 5-202 of that Article precludes release by a District Court commissioner if the defendant is charged with certain crimes under certain circumstances. (2) Permissible Conditions . Permissible conditions for purposes of this section include the required conditions set forth in subsection (d)(1) and the special conditions set forth or authorized in subsection (d)(2) of this Rule. Subsection (d) of the new Rule lists the permissible conditions of release, and financial conditions come last (before only the catch-all provision): (d) Special Conditions of Release.

(1) Required Conditions . There shall be included, as conditions of any release of the defendant, that (A) the defendant will not engage in any criminal conduct during the period of pretrial release, and (B) the defendant will appear in court when required to do so. (2) Special Conditions . Subject to section (b) of this Rule, special conditions of release imposed by a judicial officer under this Rule may include, to the extent appropriate and capable of implementation: (A) one or more of the conditions authorized under Code, Criminal Law Article, § 9-304 reasonably necessary to stop or prevent the intimidation of a victim or witness or a violation of Code, Criminal Law Article, §§ 9-302, 9-303, or 9-305, including a general no-contact order; (B) reasonable restrictions with respect to travel, association, and place of residence; (C) a requirement that the defendant maintain employment or, if unemployed, actively seek employment; ⁶⁸ (D) a requirement that the defendant maintain or commence an educational program; (E) a reasonable curfew, taking into account the defendant's employment, educational, or other lawful commitments; (F) a requirement that the defendant refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon; (G) a requirement that the defendant refrain from excessive use of alcohol or use or possession of a narcotic drug or other controlled dangerous substance, as defined in Code, Criminal Law Article, § 5-101 (f), without a prescription from a licensed medical practitioner; (H) a requirement that the defendant undergo available medical, psychological, or psychiatric treatment or counseling for drug or alcohol dependency; (I) electronic monitoring; ⁴⁵⁵ (J) periodic reporting to designated supervisory persons; (K) committing the defendant to the custody or supervision of a designated person or organization that agrees to supervise the defendant and assist in ensuring the defendant's appearance in court; (L) execution of unsecured bonds by the defendant and an uncompensated surety who (i) has a verifiable and lawful personal relationship with the defendant, (ii) is acceptable to the judicial officer, and (iii) is willing to execute such a bond in an amount specified by the judicial officer; (M) execution of a bond in an amount specified by the judicial officer secured by the deposit of collateral security equal in value to not more than 10% of the penalty amount of the bond or by the obligation of a surety, including a surety insurer, acceptable to the judicial officer; (N) execution of a bond secured by the deposit of collateral security of a value in excess of 10% of the penalty ⁶⁹ amount of the bond or by the obligation of a surety, including a surety insurer, acceptable to the judicial officer; and (O) any other lawful condition that will help ensure the appearance of the defendant or the safety of each alleged victim, other persons, or the community.

But perhaps the most significant change comes in subsection (e), which specifically forbids judicial officers from imposing financial conditions of release that a defendant cannot meet: (e) Release on Special Conditions. (1) Generally . (A) A judicial officer may not impose a special condition of release with financial terms in form or amount that results in the pretrial detention of the defendant solely because the defendant is financially incapable of meeting that condition. In making that determination, the judicial officer may consider all resources available to the defendant from any lawful source.

(B) Special conditions of release with financial terms are appropriate only to ensure the appearance of the defendant and may not be imposed solely to prevent future criminal conduct during the pretrial period or to protect the safety of any person or the community; nor may they be imposed to punish the defendant or to placate public opinion. (C) Special conditions of release with financial terms may not be set by reference to a predetermined schedule of amounts fixed according to the nature of the charge. (2) Other Permissible Conditions. If the judicial officer finds that one or more special conditions also may be required to reasonably ensure (A) the appearance of the defendant, and (B) the safety of each alleged victim, other persons, or the community, the judicial officer may impose on the defendant one or more special conditions in accordance with section (d) of this Rule. ⁷⁰ As a result, the Rule leaves cash bail only as a last resort, and only when it's the least onerous condition that will secure the defendant's appearance or protect the public.

And if the judicial officer has made that predicate finding, he must then conduct an individualized inquiry into the defendant's ability to pay and make such a finding on the record before setting the bond. B. Messrs. Bradds and Hill. 1. Mr. Bradds On January 17, 2018, Mr. Bradds was charged with first-degree burglary, third-degree ⁴⁵⁶ burglary, fourth-degree burglary, malicious destruction of property, and theft between $100 and $1500.

The charges arose from allegations that on January 13, 2018, he broke into the home of his brother's fiancée and stole a flat screen television and a digital camera and damaged the front door to the home. Mr. Bradds was arrested on January 19, 2018, pursuant to a warrant. When Mr. Bradds appeared before a district court commissioner, his bail was set at $25,000. He was unable to pay this amount and remained in jail awaiting a bail review hearing.

The OPD represented Mr. Bradds at his bail review hearing. His counsel asked the court to convert Mr. Bradds's $25,000 secured bond to an unsecured bond. Counsel argued that Mr. Bradds did not have a steady job and had recently enrolled in a methadone treatment program. The court also reviewed Mr. Bradds's criminal history, which included six convictions for non-violent crimes, one probation before judgment, and eleven failures to appear.

The State made no recommendation regarding bail or pretrial release. The court asked no additional questions about Mr. Bradds's ability to post bail, and the State offered no evidence suggesting that he could. The court noted that it had been leaning toward holding Mr. Bradds without bail, but instead increased the amount of his secured bond to $50,000: THE COURT: All right. Let's turn [to] Bradds.

All right. Mr. Bradds, this is State of Maryland v. Aaron Bradds. This is Case No. 1B02133328 charging you with first-degree ⁷¹ burglary, maximum penalty 20 years; third degree burglary, maximum penalty 10 years; fourth-degree burglary dwelling, 3-year maximum; fourth-degree burglary theft, 3-year maximum; theft $100 to under $1,500, 6 months and/or $500 fine; malicious destruction of property valued under $1,000, 60 days and/or a $500 fine. Mr. Bradds, the Public Defender has made a preliminary hearing request for you.

You also have a right to a jury trial. Your next court date is February 15th at the Patapsco Avenue District Courthouse. Mr. Bradds, do you understand the charges and the rights I explained to you earlier? MR.

BRADDS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Pretrial? PRETRIAL INVESTIGATOR: Your Honor, Defendant refused Pretrial's interview.

He has six convictions on record. Most recent, January of 2016 theft; March 2016 conspiracy burglary in the first; August 2012, unauthorized removal of property; March 2012, a theft; July 2012, felony CDS; and June 2004, misdemeanor CDS. He has one PBJ from June 2011 for CDS paraphernalia. He has seven FTA's on record, most recent May 2015.

He has four additional in the year of 2011 and May of 2012. Your Honor, Pretrial does not have a statement of probable cause at this stage - THE COURT: This is the one where - well, I tell you what - STATE'S ATTORNEY: I actually don't have a copy of it either, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to enlighten both of you then. So on Saturday, January 13th, at around 11:30 in the evening, police respond to 346 South Payson Street, Apartment B for a call of burglary.

They're met by a Ms. Shore. She advises that earlier that day at about 1:30 in the afternoon, she left for work[,] dwelling locked and secured, all property there. She gets home at 11:15 p.m., the front door is forced open. Her flat screen TV, her digital camera are missing.

Approximate value $500. Door is damaged as well. ^{72 457} Investigation reveals that on the day of the incident, a female relative of the victim observed - and here's where it gets a little - observed the victim's fiancé's brother. So in other words, the victim, Ms. Shore, has a fiancé if I'm reading this correctly, and that Mr. Bradds is the brother of the fiancé. He is seen walking in the vicinity of the house.

In addition, another neighbor reports seeing someone actually breaking into the dwelling shortly before 4:30 on the - 4 o'clock on the day of the incident. The neighbor confronted the suspect in the