Bradway's sentence: 10 years

Michael Bradway, who last year pled guilty to multiple accounts of larceny as well as forgery and risk of injury to a child, was sentenced to 10 years of prison and 10 years of special parole by Judge Robert Brunetti at Litchfield Superior Court on April 1.

Bradway has been a resident of towns in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He lived in Salisbury for several years and now has a residence in Cornwall, with his wife, Anne Scott. Since his arrest in September 2006, he has been in Connecticut correctional facilities; at present he is at The Walker Reception and Special Management Unit in Suffield. His bond in the two cases totaled $750,000. Public Defender Damian Tucker said his client remained in prison because he could not raise the money to pay the bond.

At the time of his arrest in 2006, Bradway made several apparent attempts to commit suicide. He was arrested at Charlotte Hungerford Hospital following one such attempt.

The sentencing took most of the afternoon Tuesday, according to Tucker, who represented Bradway. The state was represented by Senior Assistant State’s Attorney John Massameno.

“I’m glad that the judge sentenced him to the maximum allowed under the court-indicated sentencing agreement,� Massameno said in an interview Wednesday. “And I believe that will go a long way to protecting both this child and society at large from the machinations of a man who has lost his moral compass.�

The sentencing was made in two separate cases that are intertwined, Tucker said.

In one case, Bradway was charged with larceny in the first and second degree and forgery in the second case, for having embezzled $19,000 from a former employer, the Hartford nonprofit Love Makes a Family.  

In the second case, he is accused of having convinced doctors, school officials and family members (including his son) that the son was suffering from cystic fibrosis, a hereditary disease that affects the lungs and digestive system. It is considered fatal; some of its victims survive into their 30s or 40s.

Bradway pled guilty to the charges of risk of injury to a child as well as larceny in the first degree and forgery in the second degree. Those charges stemmed from accusations that he took $38,500 from his ex-wife’s parents to pay for medical bills.  

Tucker said his client “does not believe he is guilty� of the crimes and that his guilty plea was made as part of a plea bargain last September. It came under what is known as the Alford Doctrine.

A state of Connecticut Web site describes this as “A plea in a criminal case in which the defendant does not admit guilt, but agrees that the state has enough evidence against him or her to get a conviction. Allows the defendant to enter into a plea bargain with the state. If the judge accepts the Alford Plea, a guilty finding is made on the record.�

His client’s sentencing took three hours, Tucker explained, because Bradway tried to withdraw his guilty plea before the sentencing Tuesday.

“It turned out that his wife, or his ex-wife, had filed a civil complaint against the doctor who had been treating his son,� the public defender said. “She made the allegation that it was the doctor who diagnosed the son with cystic fibrosis. He [Bradway] believed that with that information he had a better chance of winning a trial so wanted to proceed to trial.�

Massameno said that in fact Bradway’s ex-wife, Erika Hollander, was not accusing that homeopathic healer, Ronald Whitmont of Rhinebeck, N.Y., of having misdiagnosed her son. Rather, she has filed suit against the doctor on the grounds that he “improperly relied on the father’s fabricated claim,� Massameno said.

Michael Sconyers, an attorney with the Ackerly Brown law firm who represents Hollander, said there is a simple test to determine if someone has cystic fibrosis. That test was apparently not made.

 Bradway made his request to change his plea in March. On Tuesday, Brunetti first ruled the defendant could not change his plea, and then gave him three prison sentences that Bradway will serve concurrently, or all at the same time.

The larceny charges brought a 10-year sentence, the forgery charge brought a 5-year sentence and the risk of injury charge brought a 10-year sentence. He is not allowed to have contact with his son (the boy is now living with his mother) until the child is 18. He is now 11 years old.

At Tuesday’s sentencing hearing, Brunetti decided that the year-and-a-half Bradway has already spent in jail will count toward his total sentence, meaning that he will be released in eight-and-a-half years.

At the the end of his jail time, Bradway will be released from prison but he will be on “special parole� for 10 years.

According to a state Web site, “The court can sentence an offender to a period of special parole of between one and 10 years� that goes into effect after the prisoner has served his or her “maximum sentence.�

If that person violates parole, a parole board can send him or her back to prison.

Regular parole allows a prisoner to be released from prison before the end of his or her sentence.

When asked if his client had any comment to make on the sentence he received, Tucker said, “I think Michael said everything he wanted to say at his sentencing hearing. He loves his child, he loves his son, and the process that his son has gone through as a result of this case pending has been difficult; he wishes his son didn’t have to bear that. But ultimately he did not do what they claim that he did.�

The week before his sentencing, Bradway sent a letter to The Lakeville Journal through his current wife, Anne Scott, who lives in Cornwall. In a followup note received April 2, Bradway explained that the letter was sent through his wife because the Department of Corrections has to give permission for inmates to contact the media. By sending the letter through his spouse, he hoped to circumvent that rule.

In his letter, Bradway says, “I have never sought nor received any money from my former in-laws or any other person or entity for my son’s medical expenses� and claims that the accusations against him are simply part of a “bitter divorce and custody battle.�

Both Sconyers and Massameno deny this and say that there were no divorce proceedings until 2005, when the state Department of Children and Families stepped in and took the boy away from the custody of the parents. The boy has since been returned to the care of his mother.

“There is just no basis for the claim that these charges were the product of a bitter divorce and custody battle,� Massameno said. “There was no divorce pending at that time, the parties had reached an amicable agreement about the shared care of the child. They shared custody on a basis that was mutually agreeable.�

Massameno also pointed to documents filed in court that prove Bradway did ask his in-laws for money for medical bills.

“There is a document, filed in court, a letter signed by him to his father-in-law where he makes a request for that money, and attached to it are the forged bills,� Massameno said.

Bradway’s attorney would not say whether he and his client have discussed mounting an appeal to the sentence. However, he did say that, “It’s not unlikely. In cases of this type there is potential for appeal.�

Sconyers agreed.

“Whether he is innocent or not, he can take appeal to decide if Judge Brunetti made an error in not allowing him to withdraw his plea.�