images_sizedimage_210213702

The inventory of Dr. Gulam Moonda’s personal property and real estate on file in Mercer County Common Pleas Court values his assets at $1,441,491. Among the items on the estate inventory is the doctor’s $550,000 home on Trout Island Road in Hermitage.

A federal judge has denied a wide-ranging defense request that prosecutors of Donna J. Moonda turn over specifics on the information they have developed in their investigation against her.

U.S. District Court Judge David O. Dowd Jr., Akron, only ordered prosecutors to provide more information on what Damian R. Bradford received or was to get for killing Mrs. Moonda’s husband, Dr. Gulam H. Moonda.

Mrs. Moonda, who turns 48 Monday, has been indicted on charges of murder for hire, interstate stalking and two counts of use of a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death in the death of her husband, 69, of Hermitage, who was gunned down May 13, 2005, along the Ohio Turnpike in Cuyahoga County.

Bradford, 25, of Beaver County, pleaded guilty in July to interstate stalking and felon in possession of ammunition for firing the fatal shot. He has agreed to testify against Mrs. Moonda, who authorities allege was behind the murder scheme.

Defense attorneys Roger M. Synenberg, Lawrence J. Whitney and David L. Grant have asked for bill of particulars outlining specific acts and information related to the charges against Mrs. Moonda.

For instance, defense attorneys wanted dates, times and locations of instances when Mrs. Moonda did “willfully induce and procure” Bradford to kill her husband, and information about the gun used.

Linda H. Barr and Nancy L. Kelley of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cleveland responded that the indictment gives enough detail for trial preparation, and they do not have to preview their case and legal theories or give exact details before trial.

Dowd, ruling Friday, said a bill of particulars is not a device to circumvent pre-trial limits on the information prosecutors must provide to the defense.

He also agreed with prosecutors that the defense had two opportunities to question the lead investigator, an Ohio Highway Patrol officer, at previous hearings.

Among the information the officer provided was that Mrs. Moonda was present when her husband was shot; she gave a description of the killer that was inconsistent with Bradford’s height; and Mrs. Moonda and Bradford knew each other and apparently had talked on cellular telephones to each other that day, Dowd said.

However, Dowd also noted that the importance of the case intensified when U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez decided to pursue the death penalty against Mrs. Moonda, should she be convicted on any of three of the four charges against her.

Notice of Gonzalez’s decision was made some time after the hearings at which the officer testified.

Dowd ordered that prosecutors turn over a bill of particulars by April 16 on any information about the payment Bradford did or was supposed to receive from Mrs. Moonda for killing her husband.

In other recent court filings:

• Defense attorneys withdrew notice of their intent to introduce testimony of a psychologist during her trial. If she is found guilty, they still intend to have a psychologist testify during the sentencing phase of trial.

• Prosecutors responded to the defense request to keep out of trial the end of a tape recording made at the scene of Moonda’s shooting, and a compilation of television news stories.

The tape recording details an interview by an OHP trooper of Mrs. Moonda and her mother, Dorothy Smouse. After the interview, the tape was still running and the trooper can be heard telling other police what the woman had said. Defense attorneys said the end of the tape offers no evidence or fact of any consequence.

Prosecutors responded that the tape is relevant because it contains the women’s description of the shooter and other information. The trooper’s voice while he is outside the patrol car where the interview was conducted “cannot be separated from the simultaneous conversation between the defendant and her mother,” prosecutors said. They added that the trooper will testify, which will allow defense attorneys to question him on any statement heard on the tape.

Concerning the DVD, prosecutors said they do not intend to present its entire contents in trial, only Mrs. Moonda’s statements made to the media.

Trending Video