Lawyer alleges incrimination ploy

He said his client was subject to a 'hostile interrogation.'
By LAURE CIOFFI
VINDICATOR PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU
AKRON -- Forcing Donna Moonda to testify against the man accused of shooting her millionaire husband is more about building a case against the widow than trying to convict the alleged shooter, her attorney claims.
The government's real reason for calling her to testify is an effort to "depose her when she is clearly a target for prosecution," wrote attorney Niki Z. Schwartz in a court brief filed Tuesday.
Mrs. Moonda has been named as a witness against her former lover, Damian Bradford. Bradford is accused of interstate stalking and being a convicted felon using a weapon in the May 13, 2005, death of Dr. Gulam Moonda. Dr. Moonda, a Hermitage, Pa., urologist, was shot and killed by a highway robber as his wife and mother-in-law, Dorothy Smouse, watched along the Ohio Turnpike, where the trio had pulled into an emergency stopping lane.
"Mrs. Moonda is tired of being a punching bag and would like to testify to set the record straight," Schwartz wrote. However, Mrs. Moonda intends to take Schwartz's advice and exercise her constitutional right to not incriminate herself, Schwartz wrote.
According to Schwartz's brief, Donna Moonda was subject to a "hostile interrogation" by an Ohio Highway patrolman on May 20, 2005, in which she was accused of conspiring with Bradford. Police then searched her home, seized her computer and forced her to give a DNA sample, court papers stated.
Schwartz noted in his brief that Bradford's attorneys have advised him that the government has sought to get Bradford to incriminate Mrs. Moonda.
"Thus Mrs. Moonda has good and abundant reason to fear that she will be prosecuted and that the theory of the prosecution will be that she conspired with the defendant, Bradford, to have her husband killed," Schwartz wrote.
Schwartz contends that Smouse also was an eyewitness and could testify in place of her daughter.
Mrs. Moonda's attorney also revealed in his brief that Mrs. Moonda's description of the shooter does not fit Bradford.
Potential consequences
Forcing Mrs. Moonda to testify and assert her Fifth Amendment right would also contaminate any potential jury pool if she is subsequently indicted in her husband's death, Schwartz wrote. He noted that his client will invoke her right to not testify in writing or in person prior to trial.
In a separate court filing, Bradford's lawyers said they want Mrs. Moonda to testify in their case, too. According to papers filed Tuesday, Bradford's attorneys also plan to call Mrs. Moonda, Smouse, Ohio State Patrol crime lab investigators, eight people who can talk about the events of May 13, 2005, and Shirley and Thomas White of Sharon, Pa., who have "widespread knowledge of Moonda's May 13, 2005, trip by office/hospital staff/threats to Dr. Moonda."
The defense also intends to offer exhibits that include credit cards, turnpike toll tickets, clothing and Dr. Moonda's wallet.
Bradford's trial is set to begin Monday before U.S. District Court Judge David Dowd Jr.
cioffi@vindy.com