T-L Photo/ROBERT A. DEFRANK Defense attorney Aaron Brockler, right, argues Monday against the guilty verdict returned in the case of Tim Bradley, who was found innocent of felonious assault but guilty of two counts of shooting into a habitation.

ST. CLAIRSVILLE — The defense is contesting the split verdict a jury delivered in early January in the trial of Tim Bradley for a 2021 shooting.

Under self-defense criteria, Bradley was found innocent of felonious assault for shooting Zach Burch. However, he was convicted of two counts of shooting into a habitation in the same incident. He faces a maximum sentence of 22 years in prison.

Belmont County Common Pleas Judge Chris Berhalter heard arguments Monday and will render a decision on Feb. 26 on whether to order a new trial, to acquit or to continue with sentencing.

The charges stem from the May 31, 2021, Memorial Day shooting of Burch. Bradley, 50, of 1020 N. Eighth St., Martins Ferry, had terminated Burch’s employment working on one of his properties, apparently due to dissatisfaction with the quality of Burch’s work.

Burch arrived at the Washington Street property to pick up his tool sets and allegedly to ask for payment for his work that day.

Burch took one set of tools from the house to his vehicle. While walking back to retrieve a second set of tools, it wis alleged that he made threatening statements to Bradley, who then reportedly fired six bullets, three of which hit Bradley while others were found inside a house across the street.

Defense attorney Aaron Brockler appeared with fellow defense attorney Joseph Salzgeber on Monday. They made several arguments, chiefly that the jury’s verdict was “irrational.”

They also called to the stand Jesse House, the owner of the residence across the street from the shooting site who provided the security footage from her property. No one in her house was hurt, but bullets were found in the premises. She again testified that she heard shooting and saw Bradley standing with his gun and did not see him shooting outside his property. Salzgeber asked House if she believed Bradley would be permitted to shoot in the direction of her residence, now that she knew the shooting had been ruled self-defense.

Prosecutor Kevin Flanagan objected and Berhalter sustained, asking if the defense was attempting to introduce new evidence after the trial to negate the verdict. Salzgeber said the issue of self-defense was not raised during original testimony.

Berhalter responded.

“And you believe it’s proper to ask that question now, after the trial has concluded, when defense council had that opportunity to ask it, and did not?” Berhalter asked.

Brockler argued that this could be considered newly discovered evidence for the defense.

“A witness has come forward now, saying knowing that Mr. Bradley was shooting in self-defense, she believes he was privileged to shoot,” he said. “It’s relevant to the motion for a new trial.”

Berhalter disagreed.

“It is not newly discovered evidence,” he said.

Defense argued that the inconsistent verdicts represent an “error of law,” saying both the felonious assault and firing into a habitation arose from the same action.

Brockler elaborated, saying the defense believes the verdict is “contrary to law.”

“Simply referring to the verdicts as ‘inconsistent’ or ‘not making sense’ doesn’t really do justice to what we’re talking about here,” he said. “Either the shots were proper or they weren’t. The same six shots that the jury deemed to be proper by virtue of self-defense cannot become improper because they hit a target the shooter should never be aware of.”

Flanagan referred to similar cases with split verdicts.

“What he is arguing to this court is what he wants the law to be, not what it is,” he said, adding that precedent also argues against a judge setting aside a jury’s verdict. “Just because the defense wants it, or is claiming that it is inconsistent, there is no way that these jury verdicts should be disturbed.”

Berhalter will render his decision Feb. 26. He said Bradley will be released on a $50,000 bond until then, adding that Bradley had earlier been released on bond prior to Monday’s hearing and had then appeared to the authorities as ordered.