Moonda jury will continue deliberation

AKRON, Ohio - A 12-member federal jury will continue this morning to ponder the fate of Donna Moonda, the Hermitage, Mercer County, woman accused of plotting with her former lover to kill her wealthy husband in 2005.

The panel was unable to reach a verdict Thursday after a few hours of deliberations on charges including murder for hire. If found guilty, she could face the death penalty.

The jury was sent to deliberate after prosecutors and the defense gave closing arguments.

Among those arguments was that if Donna Moonda plotted the death of her husband by her lover's hand to look like a highway robbery, it was "undoubtedly the worst plan to kill her husband," her defense attorney said Thursday.

Instead, Roger Synenberg said, there's no evidence to show that Moonda plotted with Damian Bradford to kill Dr. Gulam Moonda alongside the Ohio Turnpike.

The killing was carried out alone by Bradford, whom Synenberg described as a " 'roided-up drug addict who needed money to buy drugs."

"Damian Bradford cut the deal of a lifetime," Synenberg said of Bradford's guilty plea to Gulam Moonda's murder in exchange for a 17½-year federal prison sentence and his claim that Donna Moonda masterminded the killing.

"(Bradford) is about as cold a person as any of us could ever see. When you lie, it's easy to make a big lie. But the devil is in the details."

Yet Assistant U.S. Attorney Linda Barr said there is no doubt that the 48-year-old woman plotted with Bradford, 25, to kill Gulam Moonda so that Donna Moonda and Bradford could split millions of dollars in inheritance money, with the first payment nearly $3,000 taken from the dead doctor's wallet moments after the killing.

"Two minds were set on murder. Two people stood to benefit," Barr said. "Two fingers were on the trigger of that gun on May 13, 2005. Two people must be held accountable."

Under suspicion

About the only thing that prosecutors and defense attorneys have been able to agree on in more than two weeks of testimony is that Damian Bradford shot Gulam Moonda, 69, and that Bradford had a troubled past.

Even Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Kelley described Bradford, prosecutors' key witness, as "a drug dealer, a womanizer and a thug."

But Kelley and Barr said that even without Bradford's story, Donna Moonda was under a cloud of suspicion in the days and weeks after her husband's death, thanks to a pattern of lies and deceptions that enveloped her husband, her family, even her lover, well before the killing.

Among the lies, Barr said, was that Donna Moonda said her husband flashed a large amount of money as he and his wife stopped at a service plaza along the turnpike about an hour before the shooting.

A surveillance tape showed Donna Moonda had her husband's wallet, according to testimony.

And how could Moonda not recognize the voice of her boyfriend, questioned Barr, as Bradford approached the doctor along the turnpike demanding, "Get in the car. Give me your wallet." Why did she say the shooter was 5 feet, 3 inches tall, the height of her husband, Barr asked, even though Bradford is nearly 7 inches taller?

According to testimony, Moonda would tell Ohio State Highway Patrol investigators on May 20 that the shooter could not have been Bradford.

Bradford would continue to deny involvement in the killing until July 2006, as he faced his own death penalty trial.

He testified last week that he agreed to a plea after Donna Moonda declined to testify in his trial, asserting her Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

Donna Moonda wept as prosecutors said she never told the first people arriving at the scene of the killing or a 911 dispatcher that her husband had been shot, even though Synenberg countered that she performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation for nearly 20 minutes.

Donna Moonda even lied to Bradford, Barr said, telling him she was 31 when they met, when she was actually 15 years older.

"How many lies must it have taken to be Donna Moonda before and after May 13, 2005?" Barr asked. "She deceived every single person we know of."

And while Bradford may not have been of stellar character, "At least Damian Bradford never pretended to be something he's not," Barr said.

Having met Bradford in drug rehabilitation, prosecutors said, Moonda knew of his troubled past, and knew that he continued to deal drugs up to the time her husband was murdered.

"That is the Bradford, or 'Kaos,' that Donna Moonda knew and loved," Barr said. "And we assert that is the person that Donna Moonda had kill her husband."

And why would Bradford decide on his own that he would kill Moonda, Barr questioned. After all, Moonda had showered him with money, a vehicle, rent payments, well before the killing, with Barr adding, "(Bradford) had what he wanted."

Bradford testified last week that Moonda had talked of killing her husband in December 2004, after her husband learned of her affair. Bradford said he suggested that Moonda take the $1 million divorce settlement her husband had offered, but she refused, saying she "wanted what was coming to her."

Barr said text messages showed Moonda was talking of a beach vacation with Bradford about a month before the killing, and also speaking of starting a life together, things that Barr said would be impossible unless Gulam Moonda was out of the picture.

Barr said Donna Moonda had no way of knowing that even though a prenuptial agreement said she was limited to $250,000, she would have received more than $1 million in a divorce. Barr also said Moonda believed she could split up to $3 million with Bradford if her husband died.

Also, earlier court testimony that Gulam Moonda had received threats from others was simply a smokescreen, one that ultimately could not cover up the truth, Barr said.

"A good plan is one in which murderers don't get caught," Barr said.

The defense

Synenberg said it's only natural for investigators to suspect and investigate a spouse when someone is killed.

But in this case, "There's no evidence to suspect a meeting of the minds between Damian and Donna," Synenberg said, urging the jury to reject all of the charges against his client.

Synenberg acknowledged that Moonda had her own troubled past, losing her job as a nurse anesthetist at UPMC Greenville because she was caught stealing drugs, being sentenced to probation for that crime, and hiding that trouble, as well as the affair with Bradford, from her family and friends.

But Moonda isn't on trial for her indiscretions and can't be punished by a jury for them, and only Bradford should pay for the shooting, Synenberg said.

"We believe the evidence will show this crime has already been solved," Synenberg said.

Synenberg said Bradford's claim of the plot to make the killing look like a highway robbery simply didn't make any sense.

Why would they plot to kill the doctor along a well-traveled highway, where plenty of witnesses could drive past? Why would he shoot the doctor with Donna nearby, risking that the bullet would go through Gulam Moonda's head and hit Donna?

Maybe Moonda didn't recognize Bradford's voice because he disguised it, Synenberg said, or she had been caught by surprise.

And Synenberg said there were plenty of parts to Bradford's story that couldn't be backed up in any other fashion, by any other testimony.

Bradford said that a few weeks before the killing, Donna Moonda directed him to a Youngstown, Ohio, mosque, where he was supposed to kill Gulam Moonda, but Bradford couldn't find the opportunity.

But prosecutors never bothered to check Bradford's phone records to see whether that story was true, Synenberg said.

Synenberg said the jury should be careful in weighing how much they trust Bradford's testimony.

"If he told you, 'Trust me, I will watch your children when you are gone,' would you take him at his word?" Synenberg said. "If he said, 'Trust me, I will fill up your gas tank,' would you take him at his word even to do that?"

Synenberg said that in the weeks before the killing, Bradford had been using steroids, and was "edgy, becoming a beast."

"The Damian Bradford who testified here last week is not the Damian Bradford who killed Dr. Gulam Moonda," Synenberg said, adding, "(Moonda) was in love. (Bradford) only showed her what he wanted her to see. He was addicted to money, love and shopping. Instant gratification."

"(Bradford) is a user of people, he is a manipulator, he is a liar," Synenberg said. He pointed to a passage that Bradford apparently wrote in a notebook in December 2004 that read, "I need to think of myself before anything else."

"Is there a better description he can give of himself?" Synenberg asked jurors.

Synenberg said there were three key pieces of evidence for the jurors to consider. First was Bradford's claim that Donna Moonda put her mother, Dorothy Smouse, in the car that night to "make it look good." Synenberg said Moonda would never put her beloved mother, who never testified in her daughter's trial, in harm's way.

Second, those who plot a murder don't put themselves at the crime scene, Synenberg said, instead coming up with an alibi that puts them far away.

Last, Synenberg said, Bradford said he decided to throw out some of the doctor's belongings as he drove back to Pennsylvania, and if the murder had been plotted out, those details would have been thought out already.

Do you think Damian Bradford could ever enter a plan to kill anyone without getting money up front? No way. No way," Synenberg said.

This article originally appeared on Beaver County Times: Moonda jury will continue deliberation