SCHWARTZ DEFENSE WINS A ROUND

'02 Drug Case Can't Be Used At Trial, Judge Says

Jurors in the murder trial of Dr. Bradley Schwartz will not be told
the ophthalmologist was indicted on drug charges two years before the
slaying of Dr. David Brian Stidham. However, prosecutors will be
allowed to present evidence that Schwartz temporarily lost his
medical license because of a drug problem, Pima County Superior Court
Judge Nanette Warner ruled Friday.

In addition, Warner announced Friday that Schwartz's trial will stay
in Pima County.

Schwartz and Ronald Bruce Bigger, both 40, are scheduled to go to
trial Feb. 28 in connection with Stidham's October 2004 death.
Prosecutors say Schwartz hired Bigger to kill Stidham, 37, because he
blamed Stidham for a December 2001 police raid on his medical
practice, a subsequent federal drug indictment and the temporary loss
of his medical license and livelihood. Schwartz was outraged,
prosecutors contend, that Stidham ended up with many of his clients
and staff members during the time he couldn't practice.

Schwartz maintains he is innocent and that a third party killed Stidham.

Bigger contends that Schwartz is the actual killer and framed him for
the murder.

Schwartz's attorney, Brick Storts, filed a motion in July asking
Warner to keep the indictment from jurors, saying that allowing it in
would present an "insurmountable" problem for his client. The jurors
would be so prejudiced against his client if they knew about the
indictment that they wouldn't be fair, Storts said. More importantly,
Storts said, Stidham couldn't have had anything to do with the police
raid because the DEA investigation that prompted it started well
before the two doctors even met. The indictment is also irrelevant
because the slaying took place nearly two years later, Storts said --
well after Schwartz had gotten his medical license back.

In her written decision released Friday, Warner ruled that the
prosecutors have only one witness who says Schwartz blamed Stidham
for the investigation and there is "ill-blood" between her and
Schwartz. Conversely, the prosecutors have plenty of witnesses who
say Schwartz blamed Stidham for his problems with the state's medical
board, Warner said.

At the time of Stidham's death, Schwartz was still required by the
board to submit urine samples, participate in therapy sessions and
attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

Because jurors will be allowed to hear about Schwartz's medical board
problems, they will also be allowed to hear from several witnesses
who say Schwartz approached them at a drug lab and asked them for
help in finding a hit man.

Storts said he anticipated Warner's ruling and is "very pleased" the
indictment will not be admitted as evidence.

As for the trial's being kept in Pima County, Warner said there is no
evidence that the publicity "is so unfair, pervasive and prejudicial
that prejudice can be presumed."

Storts said Warner's decision means potential jurors will have to be
screened especially closely to make sure they haven't formed an
opinion based on the massive media coverage the case has received.

Warner intends to summon 400 potential jurors, a much larger jury
pool than usual.

Charles Teegarden, a spokesman for the Pinal County Attorney's
Office, said, "We have a lot of confidence in the court's guidance in
these matters and we're ready to proceed."