D.A. Subpoenaed for Dally, Haun Hearing

Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury has been subpoenaed to testify today at a pretrial hearing for murder suspects Michael Dally and Diana Haun.

Dally’s attorneys want to question Bradbury about a conversation they say he had with Dally prior to his appearance before the grand jury last year.

Specifically, they want to know whether Bradbury gave the 35-year-old grocery clerk legal advice at the time.

Dally and his girlfriend, Haun, were indicted on murder and related charges after separate grand jury proceedings last year. They are accused of planning and carrying out the slaying of Dally’s wife, Sherri.

Bradbury’s deputies have filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that there is no legitimate reason to force him to testify.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Schwartz wrote in a brief filed this week that Dally’s attorney should be required to first explain what testimony he expects from Bradbury and how it would be relevant in his defense.

But in a response to that motion, defense attorney James Farley argues that Bradbury is the only person who can clarify what statements were made to his client.

Farley subpoenaed Bradbury as a witness in a hearing on a separate motion filed last month that seeks to dismiss the indictment against his client on the grounds of improper procedure. The motion is one of a series filed by defense attorneys for both clients in recent weeks to get the charges against them either dropped or reduced.

In a brief filed Wednesday, Farley asks Judge Frederick A. Jones to order Bradbury to appear. He contends that the district attorney was the first person to contact Dally after he was picked up by Ventura police to testify before the grand jury.

It was the district attorney, Farley suggests, who advised Dally that he was not entitled to a “free” attorney. He says the only way he can establish under what circumstances such “advice” was given is by asking Bradbury directly.

But Schwartz countered in court papers that there is “no requirement that [the] target of a grand jury investigation be advised of his right to counsel.”