I. List of Individuals Referred to in this Summary

II. Introduction

A. Detail of Crime

III. Police Details

A. Confidential Informant

B. Major’s questioning and statement

C. Bradley’s arrest

D. Frazier’s questioning and statement

IV. Trial Testimony

A. Opening Statements

B. Kenneth Bogan

C. Paul McManigal

D. Boris Lopez

E. Cynthia Major

F. Hans Frazier

G. Scott Rywelski

H. Donald Girndt

I. Closing Statements

V. Verdict and Sentencing

VI. Problems with the Jury

VII. Rap Sheet of Hans Frazier

VIII. Other Possible Culprit

A. David Major

B. Joseph Major

IX. Information about Major and Frazier from Bradley

X. Major’s and Frazier’s Charges and Sentences

XI. Summary of Evidence

Keith Bradley-defendant

Miriam Leeks-victim

Kenneth Bogan-Forensic DNA Analyst, SLED

Paul McManigal-Charleston County Sheriff’s Office, Forensics Unit

Boris Lopez-confidential informant

Cynthia Major-codefendant

Hans Frazier-codefendant

Scott Rywelski-Charleston County Sheriff’s Office, Detective

Donald Girndt-Forensic Consultant

Beattie Butler-Defense Public Defender

Trip Lawton-Assistant Solicitor

Gregory Boyd-Also with Trip Lawton

Benjamin Culbertson-Judge

In May 2002, a woman’s body was found in the woods wrapped in garbage bags and a sheet in Adams Run. She had been beaten to death and left in these woods.

The police followed several leads, but all suspects were cleared by DNA and fingerprints. The case went cold and stayed that way for four years. In 2006, a confidential informant came to police with information about a murder he had witnessed nearly four years earlier. This confidential informant (Boris Lopez, who later testified at trial) stated that in May 2002 he heard the sounds of people fighting next door. He said that he looked out his window to see what was going on and witnessed the murder. Police took the information Lopez gave and found that his neighbor at the time he stated was Cynthia Major.

Major was brought in for questioning on March 15, 2006. In her statement she implicated Hans Frazier and Keith Bradley as the men who were at her home on the night the murder took place. She said Bradley came to her home in a burgundy car. During questioning, Major was allowed to go outside for cigarette breaks and talk on her cell phone. Major was later arrested and charged with accessory after the fact of murder. She signed a proffer agreement before giving her statement and testifying.

Based on the statement given by Major, Keith Bradley was arrested in his home on March 17, 2006 and charged with murder and kidnapping. At the police station, Bradley was read the affidavit, but was confused as to why he was being arrested, so the officer gave him the affidavit to read on his own. He noticed the name Cynthia Major. The police officer read Bradley the affidavit once more and Bradley then asked if Major was a witness. Bradley was never questioned by police or given the opportunity to make a statement.

Hans Frazier turned himself in to police. He was arrested and charged with murder and kidnapping. He, like Major, gave his statement and testimony under a proffer agreement. Frazier gave a four-hour taped interview with police. During his questioning, Frazier stated that he had nothing to do with Leeks’ murder. He maintained that the only thing he did was help Bradley put her body in the trunk of Bradley’s car, which he described as a burgundy Toyota.

On January 15, 2008, Keith Bradley went on trial for the murder of Miriam Leeks. Bradley was the first to go to trial of the three codefendants. The following paragraphs come from the trial transcript. All quotes are followed by the page number and line number (page, line) where it can be located in the transcript.

In the State’s opening statement, Trip Lawton, assistant solicitor, states, “There will be no DNA or fingerprints to link this Defendant to this crime.” (p. 76, l. 24-25) He further states, “There will be physical evidence to link his co-defendant, Hans Frazier, to the crime.” (p. 76-77, l. 25-1) Later in his opening statement, he refers to Cynthia Major, “Cynthia Major is a surrogate mother at the time of this Defendant, Keith Bradley” (p. 78, l. 4-5). In the defense’s opening statement, defense lawyer Beattie Butler states, “It’s not just that there’s no DNA or fingerprints linking Keith Bradley to this crime, there’s DNA and fingerprints that point to someone else.” (p. 84, l. 11-14)

The State’s second witness is Kenneth Bogan. He is a forensic DNA analyst for SLED. Lawton asked the question, “As far as item 4.2, the cuttings from the sheet that was on the body of Miriam, what results did you have from your tests when you used the DNA profile of Hans Frazier and Keith Bradley?” (p. 108, l, 20-23) Bogan’s response was, “In regard to comparing the mixed profile, again, it was consistent with being a mixture from at least two individuals. I could not exclude Miriam Leeks as a possible contributor. I also could not exclude Hans Frazier as a possible contributor. I also looked at the DNA profile of Mr. Bradley and was able to exclude him as a possible contributor.” (p. 108-109, l. 24-5) There were the DNA profiles of at least three individuals found on Leeks’ body, in the form of semen from a vaginal swab. None of those three DNA profiles matched either Bradley or Frazier. During cross-examination Butler asked, “And of the 13 different evidentiary items that you analyzed…none of the tests that you performed were able to generate any results that were consistent with Keith Bradley?” (p. 113, l. 1-2, 3-5) Bogan’s response was, “That’s correct.” (p. 113, l. 6)

The State’s fourth witness was Paul McManigal from the forensics unit at Charleston County Sheriff’s Office. He testified that there were partial fingerprints and a partial palm print on the garbage bag which had been placed over Leek’s upper body. The fingerprints were not suitable for identification; however, they were suitable for exclusion of a suspect. The partial palm print was suitable for identification. During cross-examination, Butler asked about the fingerprints, “Would you disagree with me if SLED compared those fingerprints to nine different suspects? (p. 172-173, l. 25-1) McManigal’s response, “No sir; I would not disagree.” (p. 173, l. 2) Butler asked, “And excluded them as being the people that left those fingerprints?...And of those nine suspects, none of them were Keith Bradley?” (p. 173, l. 3-4, 6-7) McManigal responded with, “That’s correct, sir.” (p. 173, l. 10) Butler, “So the partial palm print that was used to exclude nine other suspects, nobody compared that print to Keith Bradley’s palm?” (p. 173, l. 11-13) McManigal, “To my knowledge; no, sir.” (p. 173, l. 14) Butler, “As the crime scene investigator on this case, were you responsible for all physical evidence in the case?” (p. 173, l. 15-16) McManigal, “Yes, sir.” (p.173, l. 17) During Recross, Lawton asked McManigal, “Not talking about SLED, but did anyone compare that partial palm print to the Defendant’s prints?” (p. 176, l. 6-7) McManigal’s response was, “To my knowledge we never had major case prints on the Defendant.” (p. 176, l. 11-12) On Recross examination, Butler asked to reiterate, “Just so I think it’s clear, I want to make sure. The partial palm print that was used to excluded nine other suspects was never compared to Keith Bradley by any member of your department or anybody at SLED?” (p. 176, l. 20-23) McManigal, “To my knowledge that’s correct.” (p. 176, l. 24)

The State’s next witness was the confidential informant who came forward in 2006, Boris Lopez. Lopez testified in Spanish with an interpreter translating into English. He stated that he saw the murder take place. He saw two men beating on a woman who was on the ground and then drag her body to a car and drive away. Lawton asked, “And what car—did you see them put the body in the car?” (p. 186, l. 24-25) Lopez responded with, “In the blue car.” (p. 187, l.1) Lawton, “And why do you think it was the blue car?” (p. 187, l. 2) Lopez, “I could see from here when the car went out that way.” (p. 187, l. 3-4) Lawton, “Did you ever see another car there that night?” (p. 187, l. 5) Lopez, “No.” (p. 187, l. 6) A little later, Lawton asked, “Why didn’t you report it back then?” (p. 187, l. 17) Lopez, “Because a few days before they almost killed me in this trailer. Then someone tore down the back door. And they shot inside and the crime against the Hispanics is a lot, you understand. Therefore, I was afraid of some vengeance.” (p. 187, l. 18-22) Lawton later asks, “You weren’t able to identify anybody from this crime; were you?” (p. 189, l. 8-9) Lopez, “I only know that there were two Afro-Americans. One was tall and kind of slim. The other was a little taller—a little shorter……But he had a muscular body.” (p. 189, l. 10-12, 14) During cross examination, Butler asks Lopez about the description of the car he saw the night of the murder. He asks, “And that was the only car that was there that night?” (p. 192, l. 12) Lopez, “Yes.” (p. 192, l. 13) Butler asked, “Definitely no burgundy Toyota?” (p. 193, l. 19) Lopez, “No.” (p. 193, l. 20) Butler later asks, “One of the reasons that you moved was because your trailer was burglarized?” (p. 197, l. 9-10) Lopez, “They have robbed the trailer around four times when I wasn’t there. They arrived at midnight and tore the door up while we were inside sleeping. And for some reason they shot at my bedroom. And it almost killed me because the bullet was fired one foot above my head.” (p. 197, l. 11-16) Butler, “The woman who lived next door, one of her sons was charged with one of the burglaries of your trailer; right?” (p. 197, l. 17-18) Lopez, “Yes.” (p. 197, l. 19)

Next, Cynthia Major testified. Lawton asked her, “Had you ever met codefendant Hans Frazier before this night?” (p. 217, l. 8-9) Major’s response, “No, sir.” (p. 217, l. 10) She stated that Bradley and Frazier came into her home and Bradley had blood on his clothes, but Frazier did not. She said that Bradley changed his clothes, put his bloody clothes in a garbage bag, and took the garbage bag with him. She said she saw Bradley five to seven days after the murder. Lawton asked, “And how did it come up again about what happened that night?” (p. 225, l. 8-9) Major, “With them looking for the car and he was driving a burgundy car. And I brought it up and then I asked him about the shirt and he said he burnt that shit. They ain’t got nothing on him.” (p. 225, l. 10-13) Butler asked Major how many children were at her house the night of the murder. She stated, “There was six of my kids and four of my neighbor’s kids.” (p. 226, l. 23-24)

The next witness for the State was Hans Frazier. Gregory Boyd did the questioning. He asked, “Has anybody told you that if you testified, you did a real good job, that you wouldn’t be facing a murder charge?” (p. 238, l. 22-24) Frazier, “No, sir.” (p. 238, l. 25) He told of the events that allegedly transpired the day the murder took place and said that he and Bradley picked up a woman. Boyd asked, “And what was said that got her into the car?” (p. 244, l. 16) Frazier, “Was basically talking about a deal between exchanging drugs and sex.” (p. 244, l. 17-18) He stated that they went to Major’s home. Boyd asked, “Do you know Cynthia?” (p. 246, l. 10) Frazier, “I just knew her from meeting her a few time as talking to Keith. That’s how I met her.” (p. 246, l. 11-12) Boyd asked, “And before you went out there had you ever been out to Cynthia’s house before?” (p. 246, l. 16-17) Frazier, “Maybe once or twice.” (p. 246, l. 18) Boyd, “Had you ever gone into Cynthia’s house?” (p. 246, l. 19) Frazier, “Yes.” (p. 246, l. 20) Frazier stated that once at Major’s, Bradley gave Leeks crack cocaine and she smoked it. He said that she hesitated to do her end of the deal and that he and Bradley were yelling and cussing at her. He stated that Bradley then hit Leeks, then he hit her, also. He stated that she fell to the ground and he began kicking her. He said Bradley then got a shovel and beat Leeks in the head with it. He stated that he and Bradley both went into Major’s home and both had blood on their clothes. He said they both changed, put their bloody clothes in a garbage bag, and left them with Major. They then put Leeks’ body in Bradley’s burgundy Toyota, drove to the country, and disposed of the body. He stated many times that he lied during his statements to police.

Detective Scott Rywelski was the next to be questioned. Lawton questioned him about what happened when he read Bradley the warrant. Rywelski stated, “I started to read the affidavit part of the warrant explaining what the arrest warrant was for and what the probable cause for the arrest was.” “He didn’t quite understand after the first time I read him, didn’t understand what was going on, what the warrant was about. So I re-read the warrants to him again.” “After him getting through the warrants, he kind of looked puzzled little bit and he wanted to know why the person named in the affidavit gave us the information would say that about him because it was his mother’s best friend.” (p.338, l. 10-12, 14-16, 18-22) He continued to state, “He made the comment after reading the warrant to him that she would have to come to court and testify—come to court and prove what she saw—prove what she stated as she was the only witness.” (p. 339, l. 1-4) Lawton then asked him, “It wasn’t your intentions at all as far as interrogating him; correct?” (p. 339, l. 10-11) Rywelski’s response, “Correct.” (p. 339, l. 12)

The first and only witness called for the defense was Donald Girndt, a self-employed forensic consultant, who spent nine years doing fingerprint analysis for SLED and trained other agents in fingerprint analysis. During direct examination, Butler asks, “And were you asked to compare that palm print to anybody’s known palm print?” (p. 357, l. 13-14) Girndt, “Yes.” “Keith Bradley.”(p. 357, l. 15, 17) Butler, “And what was the result of your comparison?” (p. 357, l. 18) Girndt, “In my opinion, it’s not Keith Bradley’s palm print.” (p. 357, l. 19) He stated throughout his testimony that almost all the fingerprints not suitable for identification were suitable to eliminate Bradley as the contributor. He stated, “In the case of the palm print, his palms, the ridge detail doesn’t flow in that configuration. And in the case of the fingerprints, he doesn’t even have that pattern.” (p. 376, l. 19-22)

During Butler’s closing statement he said, “Defendants are convicted all the time today without fingerprints and DNA evidence. They’re also wrongfully convicted where there are no fingerprints and DNA evidence. No, not all of them. And you shouldn’t have to have that evidence in every case. And I’m going to speak to that in a moment, but people are wrongfully convicted. Eyewitnesses are mistaken. And, yes, cooperating codefendants lead to wrongful convictions all the time.” (p. 397-398, l. 20-4) He also says, “Now, Cynthia’s son does burglarize the only eyewitness who’s not charged with murder in the trailer and run him out of town. Maybe that’s just a coincidence. I don’t know.” (p. 405, l. 10-13) He goes on to say, “Don’t you know that at the end of the day yesterday was a phone call to somebody. Oh my gosh these fingerprints, they’re not the person who’s charged with murder.” (p. 415, l. 2-5)

After deliberating for approximately three hours, the verdict was read by the clerk, “The State of South Carolina versus Keith Renard Bradley, indictment 2006-GS-10-7114, we, the jury, find the Defendant guilty of murder. As the indictment 2006-GS-10-7149, we, the jury, find the Defendant not guilty of kidnapping.” (p.467, l. 5-9) Judge Culbertson handed down this sentence, “Mr. Bradley, the sentence of the court is that you be confined to the State Department of Corrections for a life sentence to be served for and during the remainder of your natural life.” (p. 478, l. 15-18)

There was a matter with the jury. Butler addressed the court, “As I told Your Honor and the State back in chambers, my office received an anonymous phone call. I won’t go into the details of all of it unless Your Honor requires it, but the upshot of the phone call was that a juror that the caller described as number five described to be a younger African American male, who knew the victim’s sister in some capacity and knew her as Mary.” (p. 384, l. 10-17) Of the two African American males on the jury, the younger was a Marc Richardson. Judge Culbertson asked Richardson, “Did you know the victim in this case, Ms. Leeks?” “Do you know any member of her family?” “Do you know a lady by the name of Mary Brown?” “Did you ever date a lady by the name of Mary Brown?” (p. 387, l. 14, 16, 18-19, 21-22) Richardson’s answers to all of these were, “No, sir.” (p. 387, l. 15, 17, 20, 23) According to statements taken by police in 2002, there was a suspect named Harrison Richardson who had Leeks’ ID card on him after her death. He stated that he saw Leeks a few days before her death and that she asked for money. He said he gave her his expired bank card in order to keep her from asking, and she gave him her ID card as collateral. It is possible that Marc Richardson and Harrison Richardson are related. This was never brought up in court, nor was it investigated.

Hans Frazier’s rap sheet at the time of Bradley’s trial was seven pages long. His convictions included tampering with a motor vehicle, simple assault, several counts of breaking and entering, receiving stolen goods, strong arm robbery, other counts of armed robbery, and sex offender registry violation. These convictions ranged from 1988-2005. He was also a registered sex offender. He also had a pending charge of possession and distribution of crack cocaine from December 2005.

Some other possible culprits would be Major’s oldest sons, David and Joseph Major. Both have charges relating to crack cocaine. According to Bradley, when these two boys were young, they set their dog on fire and let it die. One of these boys was charged in the offense toward Lopez and his home approximately two weeks prior to the murder. In 2006, after being released on bond, Bradley spent some time with Joseph. Bradley quoted him as saying, “It’s messed up what mama is doing.” That same night, Joseph left crack cocaine in Bradley’s car. Joseph is currently serving a five year sentence for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Although Cynthia Major stated that all of her children were at her home the night of the murder, none of them were questioned and none of their fingerprints were compared to those found on the garbage bag.

According to Major, she had never met Frazier before the night of the murder. Frazier stated that he knew her before that night and had been to her home approximately a month before. Bradley has stated that Frazier and Major had known each other for quite some time and even engaged in a sexual relationship, which began before this murder took place. Bradley’s mother has maintained that she and Major have never been best friends, Major was never Bradley’s surrogate mother, and Major was never a mother figure to Bradley.

Frazier was originally charged with murder and kidnapping. After testifying against Bradley, his charges were reduced to accessory to a felony. He will be eligible for parole the first part of 2010. Major was originally charged with accessory after the fact. Her charges were reduced to misprision of a felony. She served no time.

None of the physical evidence in this case link Bradley to this crime. Of the four DNA profiles found on the victim, he was not a contributor of any. His fingerprints did not match those on the garbage bag which covered the victim’s upper body; however, neither Charleston County Sheriff’s Office nor SLED compared Bradley’s prints to those. When Bradley was arrested for this crime in 2006, his prints were taken. Charleston County Sheriff’s Office had his major case prints, despite what McManigal said at trial. According to Lopez, the two men he saw that night were not the same height, but the arrest records have Bradley and Frazier both listed as five feet, eleven inches tall. Frazier testified that he and Bradley drove Bradley’s car, which he described as a burgundy Toyota; however, Lopez testified that the only car present that night was a blue Volvo, which belonged to Major. Major’s and Frazier’s testimony were very inconsistent. None of the details Major gave were the same as those given by Frazier. Major made a statement in her testimony about a burgundy car that the police were looking for. This was something that she said to the police during her statement in 2006. The police were not aware of a burgundy car until that point. However, Major’s blue Volvo had been painted burgundy at some point between 2002 and 2006. Lawton misled the jury by calling Major Bradley’s surrogate mother. There are still unknown fingerprints and three unknown DNA profiles in this case.