ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, September 28, 1996 TAG: 9609300042
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
NOTE: Above
There is no informant, no eyewitness, no murder weapon and no confession in the case against Earl C. Bramblett, a 54-year-old drifter who looks more like a good-hearted grandfather than a cold-blooded killer.
Roanoke County Commonwealth's Attorney Skip Burkart will rely on bits and pieces of evidence accumulated over the past two years - what's known as circumstantial evidence - when he tries to prove that Bramblett fatally shot and strangled all four members of a family and set their Vinton home on fire.
If convicted, Bramblett could face the death penalty.
Some details of the case against Bramblett emerged Tuesday in Roanoke County Circuit Court. Arguments at a pretrial hearing centered on discovery, a procedure in which opposing sides are required to disclose certain types of evidence they intend to present in court.
Perhaps the biggest surprise, defense attorney Mac Doubles said, was that there is no informant to testify against Bramblett. Because it took nearly two years to make an arrest after the members of the Hodges family were found dead in their fire-gutted home, there was speculation that an informant finally broke the case by going to police with incriminating evidence.
But there is no such person, Burkart said. Many of the witnesses he intends to call are police officers and laboratory technicians who examined dozens of pieces of evidence taken from the Hodges home.
With no smoking gun or star witness, lawyers on both sides said that more than 100 witnesses may be called, and even more exhibits presented, during a trial that is expected to last at least two weeks. It is scheduled to begin Feb. 18.
As a matter of law, juries are instructed that they can give circumstantial evidence just as much weight as direct evidence. In explaining the difference between the two types of evidence to jurors, Roanoke judges and lawyers often use the following example:
If you woke up one night and looked out the window to see the first snowflakes falling from the sky, then watched as the ground became covered, that would be direct evidence of snowfall. If, on the other hand, you slept through the night and awoke the next morning to find the ground white, that would be circumstantial evidence that it had snowed, even though you never saw it happen.
That simple example becomes more complicated in court, when prosecutors attempt to link individual pieces of evidence - which may not seem particularly damaging when viewed alone - to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence can sometimes be more convincing than direct evidence, said William Geimer, a Washington and Lee University law professor and head of the Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse, which assists defense lawyers in death penalty cases.
Geimer - who commented in general and not about the Bramblett case - said the scientific certainty of forensic evidence can sometimes be more persuasive than testimony from an eyewitness, who can bring personal bias and human fallibility to the witness stand.
But even when circumstantial evidence is strong enough for a jury to convict, the lack of a "smoking gun" might affect the sentencing phase of the trial. Although some jurors may have voted for a conviction, the theory goes, lingering doubts about the strength of the evidence could lead them to impose a life sentence instead of the death penalty.
"Research into jury deliberations has shown that lingering doubt is a real factor," Geimer said. "You may be satisfied enough to find a person guilty, but you may have enough of a doubt left that someone else may have done it ... that you don't want to kill the person in the meantime."
Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Donald Caldwell agreed.
"I think a jury will convict on circumstantial evidence alone for the crime of capital murder," he said. "But I think it would have to be a very, very strong circumstantial case for them to return a death penalty."
The sentencing phase of the trial may also present another challenge for Burkart. Bramblett's age and the fact that he has never been convicted of a felony could make it difficult to prove that he is a future threat to society.
To obtain a death sentence in Virginia, prosecutors must prove that the crime was so "vile" that it warrants the ultimate punishment, or that the defendant is such a future threat that killing him is the only way to protect society.
"With anybody who's 54 years old and has no criminal record, it's a virtually impossible task to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are going to commit more crimes in the future," Geimer said.
Burkart has not said whether he will push for a death sentence. If he does, legal observers say, he will have a better chance by focusing on the brutality of the murders.
On the morning of Aug. 29, 1994, Vinton firefighters responded to a house fire on Virginia Avenue and discovered that a family of four had been killed. Teresa Hodges, 37, was found in the living room, strangled to death. She had also suffered burns over most of her body.
Her husband, 41-year-old Blaine Hodges, was found in an upstairs bedroom. He had been shot in the head. The couple's daughters, Winter, 11, and Anah, 3, were found in another bedroom. Each had been shot in the head.
Police believe that after the family was killed, the killer used gasoline or another fuel to start a fire that destroyed much of the physical evidence in the house.
Bramblett, who was friends with the family and stayed at the home occasionally, became a suspect within days.
But when police approached him about the killings, he became evasive and defensive, according to search warrants filed in Roanoke County Circuit Court. Bramblett asked police why they didn't go ahead and charge him with murder, the warrants stated, and later said that he felt so bad about what happened that he had considered killing himself.
Later, police were given an oral diary on cassette tapes in which Bramblett talked about his relationship with the Hodges family. On many of the tapes, Bramblett expressed "feelings of hostility" toward Blaine Hodges, the warrants stated.
After writing a letter to The Roanoke Times in October 1994 that accused police of making false statements about his involvement in the case, Bramblett left the area. Nearly two years later, authorities decided they had enough evidence to seek indictments from a grand jury.
In July, Bramblett was arrested in Spartanburg, S.C., where he was working in a print shop, and charged with one count of capital murder, three counts of first-degree murder, three counts of using a firearm in the commission of a felony and one count of arson.
Since then, Roanoke County authorities have been tight-lipped about what kind of evidence was found during the two-year investigation. While this week's hearing provided a few hints of what prosecutors don't have, it shed little light on what they do have.
Judge Roy Willett gave Burkart 30 days to comply with his discovery order, which spelled out what prosecutors must share with the defense. After the hearing, Doubles said he has yet to see the bulk of the commonwealth's evidence.
"We're still in the dark about everything," he said.
LENGTH: Long : 128 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: (headshot) Bramblett. color. KEYWORDS: ROMURby CNB