AKRON, Ohio -- Jurors learned yesterday that murder suspect Donna Moonda refused to testify against the man who killed her husband.

Mrs. Moonda decided last year to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer questions about Damian Bradford, who shot her husband to death on the Ohio Turnpike.

Once Mrs. Moonda elected not to provide false testimony absolving him of the murder, Mr. Bradford said, he pleaded guilty and turned against her.

Mr. Bradford testified that he and Mrs. Moonda committed the murder together. He said she set up the crime, and he pulled the trigger, killing Dr. Gulam Moonda for money.

Listen In: Staff writer Milan Simonich reports from Akron, Ohio, that Damian Bradford concluded his testimony today. A guide to the Moonda case Previous Post-Gazette articles, photos and graphics, plus federal court documents, are available on our Moonda index page.

Through her lawyers, Mrs. Moonda, 48, of Mercer County, Pa., says she is innocent. She admits to having an affair with Mr. Bradford, 25, but says he killed her husband without her knowledge or help.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle for Mrs. Moonda's lawyers is that she witnessed the murder, which occurred in May 2005 during a stop on the Ohio Turnpike. She was only a few feet from Mr. Bradford when he fired a hollow-point bullet into Dr. Moonda's face. Even so, Mrs. Moonda told police she did not recognize the killer, who she said was a skinny man who stood 5 feet 3 inches tall.

Later, while being interrogated by an Ohio highway trooper, Mrs. Moonda went further. She said Mr. Bradford could not have been the killer.

But she refused to make that same claim under oath when Mr. Bradford was scheduled to stand trial.

During testimony Monday, Mr. Bradford said, "I lost my star witness. Donna."

Prosecutors succeeded yesterday in getting a further explanation to jurors hearing evidence against Mrs. Moonda. Mr. Bradford told them she had declined to testify at his trial, which was called off when he pleaded guilty.

Defense attorney Roger Synenberg fought to keep that information from jurors, but U.S. District Judge David Dowd allowed it. The judge said Mr. Synenberg opened the door by repeatedly questioning Mr. Bradford about his plea bargain and how it came about.

Mr. Bradford, in his prison clothes, stood with the lawyers at a sidebar conference while the jury was out of the room. Once the jury returned, he briefly explained that she had declined to be a witness at his trial. He did not say she planned to take the Fifth Amendment, but the message was essentially the same.

After that setback, Mr. Synenberg spent much of yesterday sparring with Judge Dowd. The judge repeatedly has admonished him for the way he questions witnesses. His habit is to say "wouldn't you agree with me" when he questions prosecution witnesses.

His style has grated on the judge, who numerous times has reprimanded Mr. Synenberg in front of the jury. "Mr. Synenberg, the witness is not here to agree or disagree with you. The witness is here to answer questions," the judge told him.

Mr. Synenberg had one success yesterday, as he attacked the prosecution's claim that Mrs. Moonda would have been limited to a $250,000 settlement had she divorced her husband. She and Dr. Moonda signed a premarital contract to that effect four days before they married in December 1990.

Henry Ekker, the lawyer for Dr. Moonda's estate, said Mrs. Moonda may well have been entitled to more money if a divorce had occurred.

Under cross-examination by Mr. Synenberg, he said the Moondas had several joint investment accounts. Mrs. Moonda probably would have been entitled to that money.

By Mr. Synenberg's rough calculation, she would have been entitled to at least $486,000 in a divorce.

Mr. Ekker said he has calculated the value of Dr. Moonda's estate at more than $3.4 million. Of that, $676,000 was in life insurance on Dr. Moonda. Mrs. Moonda was listed as the beneficiary of the policies.

She has not received any money from the estate. For purposes of her trial, she claims to be indigent and has received three court-appointed lawyers.

Judge Dowd and attorneys for both sides will spend today discussing which of hundreds of exhibits should be admitted as evidence. Testimony will resume tomorrow. Prosecutors may wrap up their case then.