Brad Simpson’s rare legal tactic could uncover evidence in his wife’s murder case

SAN ANTONIO – The legal path for Brad Simpson, who faces three felony charges in connection with the October disappearance of his wife Suzanne Simpson, will be a lengthy one, according to numerous legal experts.

But a legal maneuver executed by Simpson’s defense attorney earlier this month could prompt prosecutors for the first time to take a detailed look at the evidence they have collected against Simpson so far.

Simpson’s defense attorney, Steven Gilmore, requested a mistrial in the murder and prohibited weapons cases Simpson faces, according to online records. A similar motion in the evidence tampering case against Simpson was not found.

“A pretrial is as rare as a hen’s tooth,” said Texas criminal defense attorney John Hunter. “I mean, they just don’t come up.”

When an inquest in Simpson’s murder was scheduled for Dec. 9, many on social media and in groups that closely followed the criminal cases expressed confusion about what an inquest was.

“It’s about whether there is probable cause that the indictment that has been made, the allegation that has been made, can actually move forward to the next phase of prosecution, which would be waiting for a grand jury decision and ultimately going to trial Hunter, who is not connected to any of Simpson’s cases, said.

Any defendant charged with a crime in the state of Texas may request a pre-arraignment pretrial hearing that allows the defendant to interview witnesses, including investigators, about information they have gathered that supports the allegations against the defendant. A judge, after reviewing the facts presented during the pretrial proceedings, may decide whether there is sufficient probable cause to support the charge and whether the appropriate bail amount is appropriate.

However, in the past, any request for a pretrial effectively guaranteed that the case, regardless of the facts, would be expedited for arraignment in Bexar County, eliminating the possibility of a pretrial altogether.

But a closer look at Gilmore’s revealed that the Dec. 9 hearing would still take place even if prosecutors charged Simpson, just under a different legal mechanism, called a writ of habeas corpus.

“Such a hearing also requires a judge to consider the facts and circumstances of the case,” Hunter said. “And so you can kind of have the same conversations about this vehicle that you would have in an investigative process.”

Both legal maneuvers have advantages and disadvantages for both the prosecution and the defense.

At a pretrial hearing, the burden is on the prosecution to show there is sufficient probable cause to move forward with the charges, Hunter said. However, unlike a pretrial hearing, a court order allows a defendant to immediately appeal any decision made by a judge to the Texas Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“A pretrial is a disaster from a prosecutor’s perspective,” Hunter said. “If you give the defense a mandatory witness subpoena procedure and potentially a full day of testimony about the facts and circumstances of the crime, then that’s a treasure trove of information, and you get the people who do that.” Those involved, the investigators, the detectives, in a moment when they were not what we call “woodsheds.”

But Hunter believes the result of an inquest is more candid answers from key investigators and witnesses who have the case fresh in their minds, rather than having to recall facts when the case goes to trial years later.

“The fact that this will potentially take place as an investigative proceeding is a huge testament to Joe Gonzales’ administration,” Hunter said. “That’s what fairness looks like because everyone has the right to (an inquest) until the grand jury says otherwise, and people shouldn’t be penalized or procedurally worse off because they ask the court to do something they have. “a constitutional and legal right to do so.”