People v. Bashara
| Decision Date | 21 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 326324,326324 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT MICHAEL BASHARA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Wayne Circuit Court
Before: BECKERING, P.J., and MARKEY and RIORDAN, JJ.
Defendant, Robert Michael Bashara, appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, MCL 750.316, solicitation of murder, MCL 750.157b(2), first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a), obstruction of justice, MCL 750.505, and bribing, intimidating, or interfering with a witness, MCL 750.122(7)(b). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for his conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and first-degree murder convictions, 18 to 40 years' imprisonment for his solicitation of murder conviction, 1 to 5 years' imprisonment for his obstruction of justice conviction, and 2 to 10 years' imprisonment for his bribing, intimidating, or interfering with a witness conviction.
The thousands of pages of transcripts and lower court filings in this case unmistakably show that the defense vigorously advocated for defendant in the trial court, attempting to demonstrate reasonable doubt or error by emphasizing inconsistencies in witness testimony and isolated facts that obscure the clear trajectory of the events giving rise to Jane Bashara's murder. Belying the voluminous lower court record and the multitude of protestations by defendant to the contrary, this case is straightforward. In considering the chronology of the events giving rise to Jane's death, it is clear that the jury reached the correct result. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
This matter arises out of the murder of Jane Bashara, defendant's wife, whose body was found in an alley behind 19416 Annott in Detroit, Michigan, on January 25, 2012. An autopsy confirmed that the manner of death was homicide, and the cause of death was strangulation. However, the medical examiner also concluded that Jane "sustained . . . multiple blunt trauma," meaning that she was beaten.
The testimony at trial showed that defendant and Jane experienced marital and financial struggles in the years leading up to her death. Defendant had erectile dysfunction and was interested in types of intimacy in which Jane had no interest. Within that same timeframe, defendant became increasingly involved in the "bondage, discipline, and sadomasochism" ("BDSM") lifestyle, without Jane's participation. He frequently attended events with others involved in the local BDSM community and initiated relationships with other women who were also interested in that type of relationship. In 2008, he became involved in a serious relationship with Rachel Gillett, whom he met on an adult website. He also had intimate encounters with other women that he had met online between 2008 and 2012.
When first meeting women online, defendant consistently presented himself as being divorced or widowed. In spite of this, each of the women later learned that defendant was, in fact, married. However, defendant unfailingly told each woman that he and Jane were separated or no longer had a relationship, and that the couple intended to divorce after their children had completed their schooling.
Trial testimony confirmed that defendant's marital status became an issue as his relationship with one woman, Rachel Gillett, progressed. Gillett broke up with defendant numerous times based on the fact that he was still married, but defendant went to great lengths during each breakup to reassure Gillett that he loved her, that he wanted to "have a life" with her in the future, and that he would soon be divorcing Jane. Gillett remained with defendant, and the couple began looking for houses together in 2011. Ultimately, a seller accepted the couple's offer on a home on Kensington Avenue in Grosse Pointe Park. A closing date was set for January 27, 2012, and in the months leading up to the closing, defendant consistently told the realtors involved in the deal that he was divorced.
Within this same time period, defendant and Gillett looked for a third person to join their relationship and live with them in the new house. Defendant corresponded with and visited Janet Leehmann between November 2011 and January 2012, specifically indicating that he wished for her to live with him and Gillett in the house on Kensington after it was purchased at the end of January 2012.
Meanwhile, in the fall of 2011, defendant met Joseph Gentz. Gentz needed housing and employment, and he hoped that defendant could help because defendant owned an apartment complex as well as other rental properties. Numerous witnesses testified that Gentz exhibited mental disabilities or some sort of cognitive deficit. With significant assistance from defendant, Gentz did secure an apartment rented out to him by one of defendant's acquaintances. In the subsequent months, defendant and Gentz remained in continuous contact by phone.
Between August 2011 and January 2012, defendant asked several people if they were aware of anyone who could "rough up," "take care of," "run over," or "T-bone" a female tenant who was "making [his] life miserable." Within that same time period, Gentz also asked friends if they would be willing to assist him with a "hit-and-run" job for his friend "Bob," who wanted his wife killed in exchange for a few thousand dollars and a Cadillac. During these conversations, Gentz relayed specific details about "Bob's" wife, including, for example, the fact that she was a high-level executive who worked in downtown Detroit, the time at which she left work, and the specific route that she took home each day. Gentz mentioned the hit-and-run planto at least one other acquaintance as well, stating that the friend who wanted the act performed was named "Bashar, Bashar." He also told his landlord in January 2012 that he would be "coming into money" in the near future.
On January 20, 2012, Gillett sent an email to defendant, requesting to see divorce papers because she wanted to make sure that defendant actually was divorced before she signed financial documents to purchase a home with him. Three days later, the closing packet for the Kensington house was finalized, and defendant came into the realtors' office to pick it up at approximately 3:00 p.m. on January 24, 2012, the day of Jane's death. Defendant brought with him a conditional certificate of occupancy, which was dated January 23, 2012. The deal remained scheduled to close on Friday, January 27, 2012.
One of the realtors called defendant around 5:00 p.m. on January 24, 2012, to ask if he wanted to do a final walk through before the actual closing. Defendant said yes, stating that he wanted to do the final walk through at 2:00 p.m. on January 27, 2012. As of January 24, 2012, there was no financing in place for the house on Kensington, but the realtors thought that the deal was going to close, despite the lack of documentation regarding the financing of the home. Defendant had told them not to worry about the money; he had most of it and was going to obtain the rest of it before the closing.
Jane arrived home around 4:45 p.m. on January 24, 2012. As she pulled into the driveway, she told her daughter on the phone that she would call her back once she was situated inside. Jane never spoke to her daughter again. Between 4:40 p.m. and 6:26 p.m., Jane's phone utilized cell sites in the geographic area consistent with the Basharas' residence. Based on the cell site data, Jane's phone moved away from the Bashara residence and into Detroit beginning around approximately 6:30 p.m.. After 8:42 p.m., and until her body was found in the morning on January 25, 2012, Jane's phone used one particular cell site north of 19416 Annott Street. After 5:00 p.m. on January 24, 2012, all of the calls on Jane's cell phone were incoming calls.
Later in the evening on January 24, defendant called the police as well as numerous family members and friends—including Gillett—expressing concern that Jane was missing because she had failed to meet him at home at a designated time to discuss the couple's taxes. Defendant continued to call the police and other individuals throughout the night and into the morning.
On January 25, 2012, after Jane's body had been found, police officers went to the Bashara residence to notify defendant of Jane's death. The officers testified that defendant's reaction to the news seemed unusual, as he did not exhibit "a lot of reaction" or "emotion." However, other friend and family members present during that time testified that defendant exhibited grief and anguish.
On January 25, 2012, Gentz was seen with $800 or $900 in cash, and he later purchased a new, expensive phone. The following day, defendant dropped off an envelope for Gentz at the thrift store where Gentz volunteered, telling the woman who received the envelope that payment for a job was enclosed.
After Jane was found, defendant offered various theories regarding the likely perpetratorand motive for the crime. These theories changed over time, especially after specific pieces of information were publicized by the media. Defendant also provided changing accounts to other people and the media regarding where he was at various times during the evening Jane was murdered.
After Jane's death, defendant maintained that he had been working at his rental properties or at the Hard Luck Lounge the entire evening. Correspondingly, after 5:15 p.m. on January 24, 2012, defendant was seen several different times at the Hard Luck Lounge—which was located on the first floor of one of his rental properties—or outside the apartment complex located at the same location. However, after it became apparent that he went home at some point during the evening, defendant said that he briefly stopped at home to pick up some keys in between other activities that night. Consistent with his account, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial