Thomas Bray, conviction vacated, back in Bend courtroom
(Update: Bray appears by video from jail)
Six years after he was convicted of sexually assaulting and strangling a woman on their first date in Bend, the case of former doctor Thomas Bray was back in a Bend courtroom Friday afternoon, on the path toward a possible retrial after his conviction was overturned this summer.
The Oregon Supreme Court vacated Bray’s conviction last July, upholding a state Court of Appeals ruling that former Deschutes County Circuit Judge Stephen Tiktin erred by not enforcing a subpoena requiring Bray’s accuser to bring her computer to court on the day she testified.
The alleged victim, Jennifer Bennett, has spoken in public against turning over her search information. NewsChannel 21 and other media have a general policy of not identifying sexual assault victims, but Bennett appeared on NBC’s “Today” program in 2012 and also identified herself during on the record in an interview with The Oregonian.
Bray, 44, was brought back to Bend on Thursday from the Two Rivers Correctional Institution in Umatilla.
Deputy District Attorney Matthew Nelson said Bray appeared by video from the jail for Friday afternoon’s initial court appearance. Another hearing is set for next Tuesday afternoon, to address bail and the next procedural steps in the case, he said.
Bray, a former licensed anesthesiologist and part-time COCC instructor, was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2012 after his conviction on charges he raped, sodomized and strangled Bennett.
He met her on Match.com and they met for drinks in late February of 2011, when Bray was 37 and she was 23. Bennett said he sexually assaulted her repeatedly over a five-hour period.
At trial, Bray’s attorney sought computer evidence after learning she told investigators she searched online for information about Bray and the legal definition of rape.
District Attorney John Hummel told NewsChannel 21 the steps that will follow now:
· A forensic analyst will be selected to review the hard drive from the victim’s computer.
· A judge will then review the results of the forensic analysis to determine if the fact the defendant did not have the information on the hard drive at the time of his trial prejudiced his ability to defend himself.
· If the judge decides that, yes, the fact the defendant did not have that information prejudiced his ability to defend himself at trial then a new trial will occur.
· If the judge decides that Bray was not prejudiced by not having the information on the hard drive, then the judge will reinstate the conviction (and the defendant can appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals).
