Killer Briefly Flip-Flops on Whether He’s Ready to Be Executed

Condemned killer Bill Bradford seems perfectly willing to face his execution next month, but don’t talk to him about moving out of his cell. At least not yet.

The man who killed two aspiring models in 1994, and previously told judges he was ready to die, briefly sought late last week to halt his Aug. 18 execution. The reason: Guards were preparing to move him closer to the execution chamber from his cell on San Quentin prison’s death row.

Bradford, 52, signed papers Thursday suggesting that he would try to stop the execution and file an appeal in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The next day, he wrote a letter to the court’s chief judge, saying he was prepared to go ahead with the execution.

Experts and those who know Bradford say the seemingly quixotic turn of events makes sense to those familiar with the lives of condemned inmates. It remains unclear whether Bradford’s apparent uncertainty could compel the federal courts to review the execution order.

Bradford’s lawyer, Jack Leavitt, explained that his client was caught by surprise and simply was not prepared to leave his “home” and his death row neighbors nearly a month before his appointment with a lethal injection.

It’s the small things that matter most on death row, Leavitt said. The inmates, he said, “live in a fragile, hostile environment in which any shifting of the forces of their lives can cause enormous grief.”

Signing the appeal papers was the only way Bradford knew to remain in the cell he has occupied for nine years, the “house” where he has “made his peace,” Leavitt said.

“He had not yet said his goodbyes to the 34 men he has lived with for all these years,” he added.

When both sets of Bradford’s court papers landed Monday in federal court, they provoked a controversy that raises fundamental issues--most notably that of a death row inmate’s right to consult the attorney of his choice, even if that lawyer works to hasten his death.

The first set of papers bears Bradford’s signature and includes a July 16 declaration by him that states, in part:

“I intend to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the court, alleging federal constitutional errors that entitle me to relief from the judgment of conviction and sentence in death.”

The papers were filed with the assistance of a lawyer named Lisa Romero, who has aided Bradford’s former court-appointed attorney in the past. (Bradford and his former lawyer, David Nickerson, had a falling out.)

However, Bradford wrote a letter to Chief Judge Terry J. Hatter the next day, withdrawing his request for the stay and appointment of legal counsel, declaring it “null and void.”

He added that Leavitt is “the only attorney authorized and empowered to function as my legal agent and personal representative.”

Romero could not be reached.

Bradford previously has told judges that he is prepared to die by lethal injection. His second set of documents filed Monday reiterated that, stating: “It is my desire that the judgment of death be executed as presently scheduled.”

Bradford, despondent over his impending cell reassignment and unable to reach Leavitt, had signed the stay papers on an impulse when they were presented to him by another lawyer, the inmate’s representatives said. He saw the appeal “as the only means he had to ensure that he would not be moved from his cell,” said his spiritual advisor, Father Bruce Bramlett.

The transfer to the new location, known as Cell No. 1, has not yet occurred.

Bradford’s flip-flop raised procedural issues--including whether to appoint a new attorney for him. But a stay of execution had not been granted by the close of court business Tuesday.

Both the state attorney general’s office and the state Department of Corrections are proceeding with plans for Bradford’s execution, spokesmen said.

On the surface, experts said, it might seem illogical that a man who seems willing to die a month from now would balk at leaving his cell.

But Charles Ewing, a professor of law and psychology at State University of New York in Buffalo, said: “It does sound logical if you look at it from his perspective.”

“I think the whole issue of [death penalty] volunteers is one of control--’I will control my own destiny,’ ” Ewing said. “Most of these people have been stripped of just about any choice in life, including the choice to stay alive.”

While Bradford often has insisted in court papers that Leavitt represents him, both state and federal courts have refused to appoint Leavitt as his attorney of record. Both the inmate and the lawyer have clashed in the past with the California Appellate Project, which provides legal assistance for death row inmates.

It was the project, according to court papers, that obtained Bradford’s signature on the papers seeking the stay so appeals could be pursued.

Bradford was convicted of murdering two young Venice-area women during the first two weeks of July 1994, after luring them to the high desert near Lancaster with promises of modeling jobs. Police have said they suspect he is a serial killer responsible for at least eight slayings.

He fired his lawyers during the death penalty phase of his Superior Court trial, suggesting to jurors that he might be responsible for other murders.

“Think of how many you don’t even know about,” he said.

The state Supreme Court upheld his death sentence last July, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review.

Last month, Bradford sent a letter to his sentencing judge saying he agreed to the Aug. 18 execution date.

*

Times staff writers David Rosenzweig and Hector Becerra contributed to this story.