What's the latest on Jeris Bragan?

[ClubV12]

LifeHiscost, John just addressed my "speculation" on this, he was the one who first suggested it, which is why I wondered about it. Until this thread I had no idea who the guy was or what the case was all about.

As to "Simple as ABC", thats an Ellen White quote, regarding righteousness by faith.

"We do not understand the matter of salvation. It is just as simple as ABC. But we don’t understand it." Faith and Works (64).

I do recall someone saying something about this ask, believe, claim thing. It must have been some kind of "movement" or something within the Adventist community somewhere along the line? In a way, it sounds like the concept could border on "demand" and "presumption", but I could be totally mistaken...

Unless I have very clear light on an issue I like to leave the matter in Gods hands with a "thy will be done" attitude. Like if someone is sick, even dieing, how am I supposed to know if the Lord would have them healed or not? It may be for their own good, their own soul salvation, to be put to rest at that time and await the coming of the Lord? "Claiming" a promise of "healing" in such a case would be presumption, even demanding.

When righteousness by faith is understood, "the works come as a natural outworking of the inward presence of Jesus through the Holy Spirit." The problem I'm seeing is that to many folks assume righteouness by faith means a simple (as ABC) prayer and thats all this is required. Well, that COULD be, depending on time, place, circumstances (theif on the cross). But lets not forgot the power of the will in being "determined" to put away sin from our lives (faith AND works).

[LifeHiscost]

249 F. 3d 476 - Jeris E. Bragan v. David Poindexter, Warden

I just read the above and have come to the conclusion that, while every man's right is to defend himself, whether believer or not, some of what I read was easily discernable but a lot of the rest was like blah! blah blah blah blah blah blah, seemingly making it obvious to me that whether we are guilty or not, if one gives their case to the only Lawyer Who can make any permanent and justifiable difference, they'll be far better off and can avoid a lot of hassle and unhappiness. It is admitted that might mean that our power in this world may be curtailed, but since this isn't where our citizenship is, why should we care??

Even one who Jesus said there was no greater on this earth, had only this to say about his position in life here,

"He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all."John 3:29-31 NKJV

Jesus' words as to His assessment of John the Baptist,

"“I tell you the truth, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is!"Matthew 11:11 NLT

Perhaps part of Jeris Bragan's losses are a direct result of trusting in this world's courts to determine his future, as if going to them would make his life better.

My trust?

"My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous."1 John 2:2 NLT

God blesses!

[phkrause]

Do you still have his book? I've never read it but would be interested to know what he says in it about why the police arrested him for the crime. What does he say, for instance, about his wife?

Yes I do and will start rereading it when I get a chance. When my grandson goes to bed. LOL

[olger]

I thought that he was put back in prison..Nuff Sed

[olger]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Speculation is that his wife killed the guy and he's taking the rap for it?

You mean "took" the rap. I don't buy that, and really haven't heard that either.

His wife pushed the guy down the stairs and he broke his neck. To help her out he fixed it to look like an accident.

Wife divorced him, ratted on him and claimed it was all an accident. He got the time.

[phkrause]

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Unless I have very clear light on an issue I like to leave the matter in Gods hands with a "thy will be done" attitude. Like if someone is sick, even dieing, how am I supposed to know if the Lord would have them healed or not? It may be for their own good, their own soul salvation, to be put to rest at that time and await the coming of the Lord? "Claiming" a promise of "healing" in such a case would be presumption, even demanding.

I'm in perfect agreement on the above. I have found that some times, if not most of the time, because we do not know the Word well enough, our initial attitude is that if we can't see immediately before us God's perfect will, it is assumed God really doesn't want to heal a person, for whatever reason.

And I wasn't particularly referring to the healing of the body when mentioning the ABCs of receiving, although Christ's willingness to heal any and all when He passed through a village, gives the impetuous to a lack of claiming in the world we live in today.

I'm satisfied it's always wise to plead "if it be Thy will". OTOH to automatically dismiss it being His will seems to me to be dismissing His desire, all things being considered making the timing of the healing most often different than immediate intervention.

As to the Scripture, "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven", presupposes in my eyes anyway, God's will is being circumvented as a result of man choosing to either do it on their own or living as if what one permits in their own conduct has little to do with the gifts God is willing to give.

"I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, if anyone steadfastly believes in Me, he will himself be able to do the things that I do; and he will do even greater things than these, because I go to the Father." John 14:12

AMP

God blesses!

[Guest]

His wife pushed the guy down the stairs and he broke his neck. To help her out he fixed it to look like an accident.

Wife divorced him, ratted on him and claimed it was all an accident. He got the time.

Thank you olger. You got to the heart of the main question, that is, ..what happened?

[ClubV12]

Nice balanced approach with the ask, believe, claim thing LifeHiscost. I think there are times and circumstances when we can do that, boldly come before the throne of God in faith and believe we can receive.

[John317]

Below is the court's finding in the case of Tennessee vs. Jeris Bragan. At his last trial, he was sentenced to 99 years in prison. He claimed that the original district attorney had been "out to get him," but the court found there was no evidence to prove this. A different district attorney prosecuted Bragan at the second trial. The jury found him guilty.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/249/476/603201/

Below are some of the more significant statements:

Quote:

The Petitioner, Jeris E. Bragan, was charged along with Darleen Bragan, who was then the wife of the Petitioner, with the premeditated and deliberate murder of George Nesbitt Urice in an indictment filed March 30, 1977. The Petitioner and his co-defendant spouse were jointly tried in September 1977. Mr. Bragan was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 99 years imprisonment. The former Mrs. Bragan was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to not less than 15 years nor more than 20 years imprisonment, modified on appeal to a determinate sentence of fifteen years. Mr. Bragan's conviction was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee on January 18, 1979. The Supreme Court of Tennessee denied certiori [sic] as to Mr. Bragan on April 9, 1979.

¶7

Mr. Bragan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court on July 11, 1989. The writ was granted by the Honorable John T. Nixon in a memorandum and order filed April 17, 1992. The case was reported as Bragan vs. Morgan, 791 F. Supp. 704, [sic] (M.D. Tenn. 1992). The Court ordered Mr. Bragan released from custody if he was not provided a new trial within sixty (60) days, page 721 of the reported opinion.

¶8

Among the bases for this Court's previously granting habeas corpus relief were its findings that prosecuting attorneys at Mr. Bragan's 1977 trial knowingly suppressed evidence favorable to the defense and failed to correct the false or misleading testimony of the State's key witness, William Harold (Buggy) Torbett. The Court opined that Mr. Torbett's false statements were literally put in Torbett's mouth by the prosecutor on direct examination and later repeated in closing argument. The Respondent has acknowledged that Judge Nixon's findings in Bragan vs. Morganas to the prosecuting attorneys' misconduct at the 1977 trial have become the law of the case.

¶9

The State complied with this Court's 1992 order by releasing Mr. Bragan from custody on May 22, 1992. Subsequent to his release from custody, Mr. Bragan remained at liberty without bond even though he was subject to being retried in state court on the 1977 indictment.

¶10

(Pages 5-6 of Transcript of February 5, 1998 hearing before Magistrate Judge Haynes).

¶11

According to Petitioner, after the State dropped its appeal of the 1992 order granting Petitioner's habeas writ, he asked Fred Steltemeier, an attorney, to pursue disciplinary proceedings against Gary Gerbitz, the district attorney general and the lead prosecutor in Petitioner's original trial, and Stan Lanzo, an assistant district attorney involved in the initial prosecution of Petitioner. On June 22, 1992, Steltemeier filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Responsibility against Gerbitz and Lanzo. Steltemeier based the substance of the complaint primarily on Judge Nixon'smemorandum granting Petitioner's habeas writ.

¶12

Following his release from prison, Petitioner gave interviews to the Associated Press, The Tennessean, the Banner, and the Chattanooga Times regarding his 1977 trial. He also appeared on several network radio programs as well as at least two radio talk shows in Nashville. The substance of those interviews concerned the perjury of an informant, William "Buggy" Torbett, and Petitioner's allegations that Gerbitz and Lanzo arranged for Petitioner and the informant to be locked in the same cell, that Gerbitz and Lanzo suborned perjury, and that they coached the informant as to what to say. Petitioner also communicated to the media that a witness at his original trial, Ralph Janow, had expressed that he was in fear of his life, and that Janow was subsequently murdered. Petitioner also appeared on television and spoke before groups about his trial and his prosecutors. In January 1993, Petitioner completed a book entitled Beyond Prison Walls, an autobiography scheduled for release on April 19, 1993. Petitioner summarized the content of the book's discussion of Gerbitz and Lanzo:

¶13

[t]hat I believe the evidence shows that they were corrupt prosecutors that suborned Mr. Torbett to perjury. That they arranged to have me placed in a cell with him so he could identify me. And that they went to great lengths to cover that up and keep it from ever being exposed.

¶14

(Page 46 of Transcript of February 5, 1998 hearing before Magistrate Judge Haynes).

¶15

In the fall following Petitioner's release, Lanzo telephoned Thomas Bloom, an attorney who represented Petitioner in his successful habeas corpus challenge in 1992. Lanzo proposed a meeting to discuss settlement and offered, in general terms, that Petitioner plead guilty to second-degree murder for time served. Lanzo communicated this offer to Petitioner who responded "rather immediate[ly] and clear[ly] that he was not guilty of the crime" and refused to plead guilty to second-degree murder.

¶16

The stipulated facts presented to the United States Magistrate Judge during the evidentiary hearing continue as follows:

¶17

On motion of the State of Tennessee, the murder prosecution was reinstated to the trial court's docket by order filed March 31, 1993. The Petitioner was arraigned in the Criminal Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee on April 19, 1993.

.....

[olger]

So they offered to let him go if he pled guilty to 2nd degree murder and he refused, saying "he was not guilty of the crime." That suggests a lot to me - that he really didn't commit the crime.

`g

[ClubV12]

I wouldn't assume much with these type's of things. How a person pleads, for me, is off the table as to an indicator of guilt or innocence, as well as whether a person decided to testify in their own defense or not. There are to many variables in such a decision for me to give it any weight. Guilt or innocence has to be determined solely on the facts, or lack thereof. It's the same view I take when considering biblical truth. Truth can withstand a careful look, independant of the messenger. The messenger might be Balaam, a "bad guy", but he still brings the truth on occasion. Or the messenger might be a "good guy" but that doesn't mean he's bringing the truth.

[LifeHiscost]

Nice balanced approach with the ask, believe, claim thing LifeHiscost. I think there are times and circumstances when we can do that, boldly come before the throne of God in faith and believe we can receive.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

Truth can withstand a careful look, independant of the messenger. The messenger might be Balaam, a "bad guy", but he still brings the truth on occasion. Or the messenger might be a "good guy" but that doesn't mean he's bringing the truth.

The major difference can often be, the one guy speaks contrary out of ignorance (lack of knowledge) whereas the other guy speaks with intent to mislead or defraud, for the sake of personal gain.

God blesses!

[John317]

So they offered to let him go if he pled guilty to 2nd degree murder and he refused, saying "he was not guilty of the crime." That suggests a lot to me - that he really didn't commit the crime.

`g

You might have a point, but on the other hand, he might have sincerely believed he could beat the charges in court.

I don't know if he is guilty or not, but the evidence seems to point in that direction. Ususally if two different juries find a person guilty of a crime of this magnitude, the person is guilty.

However, it's possible that Jeris and his wife didn't commit the murder on purpose. They may have been fighting and the victim fell down the stairs. [Added later: I found out all three of them had been drinking and were probably drunk. This is in the trial transcripts.]

I think we should pray that if he's guilty, God will convict him and bring him to full repentence. On the other hand, if he's not guilty, we need to pray that God will comfort him and be with him through this tragic time in his life. We know that God was with Joseph when he was imprisoned for something he didn't do. All we can hope and pray for at this time is that God will use Jeris Bragan while he's in prison.

[John317]

You might be interested in reading a fairly recent piece of writing by Jeris Bragan that appeared in Spectrum:

Source:

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/colu...nd-global-drama

Quote:

Jeris E. Bragan II - Sun, 05/08/2011 - 03:40

I respect people who, on religious or moral grounds, refuse to bar arms for any reason at any time.

I'm also glad they are not the majority.

i deeply admire President Obama for his deterination to find UBL and sending in the Seals to terminate this mass killer''s life. I have no problem with people cheering around the White House and singing the Star Spangled Banner. I wish I could have been there to share their joy that this monster is dead and gone.

We like to think our choices are between good vs evil. Sone choices are between worse and worser, like abortion. In 65 years of living, I'm still waiting to meet the person who is "pro-abortion.". There's no such animal. People choose/reject abortion for worse or worser reasons.

Without losing our idealism, most of us live in this real earthy world where God's hands are our own. We can duck & dodge, but the world cannot tolerate the continued existance of a mass murderer like UBL or those who want to pick up his torch.

Had he been captured, rather than executed on the spot, can you imagine the number of Americans around the world who would be kidnapped, tortured and killed? It's not a pretty picture to contemplate.

Nevertheless, I still sign off with the hope of...

Shalom!

Jeris E. Bragan

[John317]

Here are two letters that Jeris E. Bragan wrote this past June to the Spectrum:

Quote:

Jeris E. Bragan II - Sun, 06/05/2011 - 00:13

First, I am solidly in support of ordaining qualified women. That this issue of justice and equality is still bouncing around leaves me baffled at times. At other times, I recognize the politics of the issue.

This issue will NEVER be resolved until the laity of the church makes a stand. Male pastors can't do it. If a collection of them try, they'll quickly be fired and marginalized by the power structure. I'm skeptical that a majority of ordained male pastors favor the ordination of women. Either they lack the courage as displayed by Bruce and some others, or they don't really want the competition for jobs.

In any event, the status of women pastors is not going to change unless the laity vote with their checkbooks. I'm skeptical that will ever happen because liberal/progressives would rather talk the subject to death than organize and do something about. Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to get what they want. They understand hardball politics and are quite happy to use any and all weapons to achieve their goals. Liberal/progressives don't appear to have the stomach for actually organizing and doing something about this issues.

Shalom,

Jeris E. Bragan

=======================

Jeris E. Bragan II - Sun, 06/05/2011 - 00:18

P.S. I haven't paid any tithe to the church since 1993. My wife and I use our tithe to help organizations that don't discriminate against women. We don't plan to support the church financially until the power structure changes it's position on the ordination of qualified women--or we drop dead!

Jeris E. Bragan

Origin: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/06...terial-equality

[ClubV12]

Wow,,, lets all grab the pitch forks, somebody get the tar and feathers, time to take out the General Conference.

No wonder I deleted Spectrum from my list of favorite web sites.

[John317]

From Court record, the case of Jeris E. Bragan.

Dated 1995.

Quote:

The appellant was retried in January, 1994 and was again found guilty of first-degree murder. He received a sentence of ninety-nine years in the Department of Correction.

Facts

The following proof was developed at the appellant's second trial in January 1994. In 1976, the appellant and Mr. George Urice were in the private investigation business in Chattanooga. The appellant was president and principal owner of a detective agency named Searchers, Inc., which employed Urice as an investigator. The appellant's wife, Darleen Whary Bragan, worked as a secretary and part-time investigator at the agency. The agency was located in Apartment 116 of the Stratford Apartments in Hixson. The appellant and his wife resided in an apartment located in the same complex. In the fall of 1976, the appellant and Urice contacted Phil Smartt, a local Mormon preacher and insurance salesman, concerning the purchase of a "key man" life insurance policy for the corporation. Eventually, Smartt issued a policy on the lives of both the appellant and Urice, with coverage of $100,000 for each individual. In the event of the accidental death of either party, the policy would pay $200,000. At the request of the appellant, Searchers, Inc. was designated the beneficiary of the policy. Bragan was covered immediately, but Urice's coverage, due to his age, was effective upon completion of a medical review. The policy became effective October 13, 1976.

The record indicates that Urice was unhappy with his business and personal relationship with the Bragans, and had expressed fear and distrust of the couple. On more than one occasion, he told his wife that he felt like the appellant was going to kill him for the insurance proceeds. He told Smartt, who doubled as Urice's minister, that the Bragans were "amoral." Also, his paycheck had bounced on several occasions, and he talked of seeking employment with other detective agencies in the area.

On the evening of November 22, 1976, Dwayne Pitts, an Emergency Medical Technician for Hamilton County, was dispatched to the office of Searchers, Inc. When he arrived, he found George Urice's body lying on the floor directly beneath a carpeted stairway, blocking the front door. Urice had injuries to the face and head, and his body was badly swollen. Splatters of blood were present on the floor and the walls at the bottom of the stairway. Pitts called the police, who arrived shortly thereafter.

Detectives with the Chattanooga Police Department inspected the scene, gathered evidence and took photographs. The detectives observed a broken tooth and fingernail on the stairwell, scuff marks on the wall at the top of the stairs, and what appeared to be blood on soap and a towel in the downstairs bathroom. They also noticed that the appellant had blood on his clothing, and that a chair with two broken legs was on the floor near the victim. The appellant told the detectives that he was not present when Urice was killed, but that Urice had been drunk and that he must have accidentally fallen down the stairs. He also told detectives that when he discovered the body, it was lying over a chair.

Sometime after the police arrived at the scene, the deputy coroner for Hamilton County arrived. The coroner, along with the police, noticed that the victim had indentations around his wrists, and a mark on his back in the pattern of handcuffs. The deputy coroner and detectives attached handcuffs to the victim's wrists, and held them up to his back. The indentations on the victim's wrists and the mark on his back perfectly matched the outline of the officer's handcuffs.

Later that evening, Detective William Dixon took the statement of the appellant at the police station. The appellant told Dixon that he and his wife had planned to fly to Washington D.C. on the night of the 22nd, and that Urice had agreed to drive them to the airport. According to the appellant, when he came to the office between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m., Urice was already there. The appellant's wife showed up a few minutes later, and the three of them stayed in the office until 12:30 p.m., discussing business and drinking coffee with brandy. The appellant told Dixon that at 12:30, they went to a local restaurant, where they ate lunch and had several drinks. They returned to the office around 2:30 p.m., where they talked and drank until 5:15 or 5:30 p.m.. At that time, the appellant and his wife left Urice at the office and went to their apartment to pack. According to the appellant's statement, they were out of cigarettes, so they went to a local restaurant to buy some. Sometime later, they returned to the office and found that the front door was blocked. The appellant told Dixon that he saw blood on the floor and the top of the victim's head, and, realizing that something was wrong, he went around to the back of the office, broke the sliding glass door with a tire iron, entered and found the body of the victim. He then moved the body to determine whether Urice was still alive. The appellant couldn't remember whether the body was lying over a chair. The appellant denied killing the victim, stating that he was his best friend and that the victim's wife was "the closest thing to a mother that his wife has." The appellant also stated that he did not see any handcuffs when he moved the body, and he could not recall the position of the body when he found it.

The appellant's wife at the time of the murder, Darleen Whary, testified for the State. *fn2 Whary testified that early in the fall of 1976, the appellant started discussing with her how he was going to kill Urice. According to her testimony, the appellant told Whary that he was going to kill Urice for the proceeds of the key man insurance policy and because he feared Urice. The appellant told her that he planned to get Urice drunk and push him down the stairs of the office, making it look like an accident. Whary testified that when she arrived at the office on November 22, 1976, the appellant and Urice were there. The three of them talked for awhile, then went to lunch at a local restaurant, where they had several drinks. They then drove back to the office. Whary testified that upon arriving at the office, the appellant went to check the mail, leaving Whary and Urice in the car. Shortly thereafter, the appellant joined Whary and Urice in the office. The three individuals then sat around in one of the upstairs offices and had more drinks. According to Whary's testimony, Urice was not drinking fast enough to suit the appellant, so the appellant urged him to drink. When Urice resisted, the appellant produced a gun and forced him to drink. When Urice again began to resist, the appellant had Whary hold the gun while he handcuffed Urice behind his back and poured scotch into his mouth and forced him to drink. According to Whary, at some point after this, the appellant placed gauze in Urice's mouth and adhesive tape over his mouth, and began "talking mean and ugly to him, like you do someone that you're trying to humiliate or dehumanize." The appellant then got up and led Urice to top of the stairs. Whary testified that at this point, she went downstairs into the kitchen. The next thing she heard was "a crash and a thud." She then went into the entrance area of the office where she saw Urice lying in a crumpled heap on his right side at the bottom of the stairs. The appellant was standing over Urice. Whary testified that the appellant determined that Urice was still alive by checking his pulse, then retrieved a nightstick from a supply closet and "held it up to [urice's] throat until there was no more air."

Whary testified that after killing Urice, the appellant said "now we have to go and be seen some place so people will see us during this time, and we have to get rid of these handcuffs and nightstick." According to Whary, they then drove toward Chickamauga Lake. On the way, Whary, at the request of the appellant, threw the nightstick into some weeds by the side of the road. The appellant then threw the handcuffs into Chickamauga Lake. After disposing of the handcuffs, the appellant and Whary drove to Denny's restaurant, where Whary entered and bought a pack of cigarettes. Whary testified that they then proceeded to the office and pretended to discover Urice's body. The appellant then broke a chair to make it look like Urice was carrying a chair downstairs and fell down the steps. According to Whary's testimony, the appellant removed the tape and gauze from the victim's mouth, moved the body to deceive the coroner and called paramedics.

Whary testified that she did not know what exactly occurred between the appellant and Urice at the top of the stairs. On cross-examination, Whary testified that she never saw the appellant strike a blow to Urice's head.

Elizabeth Teal Sizer-Haven testified that she lived at the Stratford Apartments, next door to the appellant's office, in 1976. She was sixteen at the time. She testified that at 6:00 p.m. on November 22, 1976, she heard loud sounds from the upstairs portion of the appellant's office. A few minutes later she heard a loud thud or crash coming from the bottom of the stairwell of the appellant's office. At 6:15, she heard the sliding glass door of the appellant's office "hitting and closing really loud." Another resident of the Stratford Apartments at the time testified that around 6:15 or 6:30 on the 22nd, she saw the appellant running around the back of the building with something in his hand. Also, the testimony of the apartment manager at the time of the killing from the 1977 trial was read into the record. The manager testified that at 4:00 or 4:30, she saw a gray-haired man and the appellant's wife get out of a car and go into the appellant's office. *fn3

Dr. George Beckmann, county coroner and county medical examiner for Hamilton County in 1976 testified that a post-mortem examination of Urice was conducted the day after he was killed. Dr. Beckmann testified that Urice had a laceration approximately one and one-half inches long over his left eye, a cut lower lip on the right side of his mouth, contusions around his left eye, multiple contusions and bruising of the head and neck, depression marks from some sort of restraint on both wrists, and an imprint of a handcuff on his back. Dr. Beckmann testified that the victim had liver mortis from the back of his neck to the upper buttocks of his back, meaning that the body had been lying on its back for forty-five minutes to an hour after death. He testified further that the handcuff impressions on the victim's wrists occurred before death, and the imprint on his back occurred after death. The victim was also missing a front incisor, and the gum was still raw in the place where it had been located. Dr. Beckmann testified further that the victim had a large fracture of the skull (four and-a-half inches) over the right parietal area and a marked edema (swelling) to the brain. According to Dr. Beckmann, the victim died as a result of a severe beating to the head and the edema of the brain that resulted from the injuries. He testified that the appellant had received at least four or five blows to the head. Beckmann performed a blood alcohol test, which revealed that the victim had a blood-alcohol content of .23 percent. Finally, Dr. Beckmann testified that the head injuries could not have been caused by a fall down the carpeted stairs in the appellant's office. According to Dr. Beckmann, the only injuries consistent with a fall down those particular stairs were the cut lip and missing tooth.

As part of its case in chief, the prosecution read into the record the 1976 lab reports of two forensic scientists from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. The first report revealed that blood on the appellant's clothes matched the victim's blood, that tests on the bathroom towel, nightstick and handcuffs gathered at the scene indicated the presence of human bloodstaining, but the samples were insufficient for further tests, and that there was no indication of bloodstaining on the soap from the office bathroom. The second report revealed that the fingernail found on the stairs of the office was a female fingernail, and that there was no evidence of breaking or tearing of the fingernail.

The defense offered the theory that it was not the appellant, but the appellant's wife, Darleen Whary, who committed the murder. Several witnesses testified in furtherance of this theory. Rick Sharp testified that he was acquainted with the Bragans and had worked for Searcher's Inc. in 1975-76. After the appellant's conviction, Sharp had become close friends with the appellant through his work with the prison ministry of a Chattanooga area church. Sharp testified that he had a date with Whary shortly after the first trial, while Whary was free on appeal bond. Sharp testified that during their date, Whary related the following account of what transpired on the date of Urice's killing. Whary and Urice were alone in the office after lunch. Urice was drunk, and the two of them started arguing. Whary pushed Urice, who fell and hit his head on a chair. While he was in a semi-conscious state, Whary handcuffed him. She was directing him towards the stairs when he tripped and fell to his death. Sharp testified further that in the fall of 1982, he visited Whary at the state prison for women in Nashville. According to Sharp, during the visit he asked her why she wouldn't tell the truth and let the appellant go free. Whary allegedly became angry at this suggestion, stated that the appellant deserved to be in prison, and "patted down" Sharp for "wires". On cross-examination, Sharp admitted that he had visited Whary in prison at the appellant's request.

The appellant testified in his own defense. He testified that after returning from lunch on the date of the murder, he left his wife and Urice at the office, went to his apartment and fell asleep on the couch. Around 5:00 p.m., he was awakened by his wife, who told him that Urice had fallen down the stairs and was dead. According to the appellant, he then ran down to the office and went in through the sliding glass door in the back. He walked into the living room and saw Urice at the bottom of the stairs. He went to check the victim for a pulse, and discovered that he was handcuffed. The appellant testified that at this point he lifted the appellant's body and removed the handcuffs. He then started to call for medical assistance but was stopped by his wife. According to the appellant, he asked his wife what had happened and she said that Urice was drunk and had approached her from behind and grabbed her breasts and crotch. She had pushed him away, and he had fallen backwards and hit his head on a chair. The appellant testified that Whary told him that she then handcuffed Urice, and led him to the stairs, where he tripped and fell. The appellant admitted that he broke the chair to make it look like an accident and disposed of the handcuffs and nightstick, although he stated that he threw both items into Chickamauga Lake. The appellant testified that he concealed evidence, lied to the police and lied in the first trial in order to "protect his family," and, because of a condition of hypoglycemia, it was difficult for him to think.

In his testimony, the appellant admitted that he had been found guilty of wiretapping, a federal offense, in 1972.

For the original source and the rest of the information, see link:

http://www.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19950705_0010.tn.htm/qx

[Daryl]

Is Jeris Bragan still in prison, still alive, or.......???????

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

he's on Facebook..

[Bravus]

If this man was not a Seventh-day Adventist, just any other (twice) convicted murderer, how quickly would you all be accepting his version of his story?

It's something I see frequently here: one set of rules and presumptions for the in-group and a different one for the out-group.

He was convicted of this crime twice in duly constituted courts. If you listen to just about *every* imprisoned murderer, there will be a detailed story about how it wasn't them and someone was out to get them. Is there anything, *besides his religious faith* that makes Mr Bragan different?

[debbym]

If i had been on the jury i would likely say guilty, after reading the wife's account.

[Jeannieb43]

If this man was not a Seventh-day Adventist, just any other (twice) convicted murderer, how quickly would you all be accepting his version of his story?

It's something I see frequently here: one set of rules and presumptions for the in-group and a different one for the out-group.

He was convicted of this crime twice in duly constituted courts. If you listen to just about *every* imprisoned murderer, there will be a detailed story about how it wasn't them and someone was out to get them. Is there anything, *besides his religious faith* that makes Mr Bragan different?

And how long had he been a Seventh-day Adventist?   Was his a prison conversion:? 

In other words, if (as one witness testified) he was extremely drunk when all this happened, he probably didn't even think he was doing anything wrong, in beating up the "bad guy."   It might have been only after he sobered up, and found Christ, that he got the idea to try to reverse his conviction.