Dead By Sunset

is a true crime book written by Ann Rule and first published in 1995, detailing the September 21, 1986, bludgeoning murder of Oregon attorney Cheryl Keeton Cunningham, whose battered body was discovered in her van abandoned on a highway shoulder during rush hour.^[1][2] The case centered on her estranged husband, Bradly Morris Cunningham, a charismatic real estate entrepreneur with a history of multiple marriages and financial manipulations, who was embroiled in a fierce custody battle over their three young sons at the time of the killing.^[3][1] Rule, a former Seattle police officer turned bestselling author known for works like The Stranger Beside Me, reconstructs Cunningham's troubled background, his pattern of charming and then dominating intelligent women, and the years-long investigation that culminated in his 1993 conviction for first-degree murder, followed by a life sentence with a 22-year minimum term—though the conviction faced appeals, ultimately upheld in 2005.^[3][4][5] The narrative highlights the bizarre trial proceedings, where Cunningham acted as his own defense attorney, employing erratic tactics that prolonged the legal saga and exposed his egocentricity.^[1] This account underscores themes of domestic control and deception, drawing from court records, witness testimonies, and victim statements to portray a perpetrator whose outward success masked profound misogyny and violence.^[3][1]

Bradly Cunningham's Background

Early Life and Formative Influences

Bradly Morris Cunningham was born in 1948 in Seattle, Washington, where he spent his early years.^[6] He grew up in the city, developing an interest in athletics that shaped his formative experiences. In high school, Cunningham distinguished himself as a football player, gaining local acclaim as a hero for his performance on the field.^[6][7] Cunningham pursued higher education at the University of Washington, continuing his football career and earning recognition as a star athlete during his time there.^[6][7][8] This athletic success contributed to his self-image as charismatic and capable, influences that carried into his later personal and professional endeavors. True crime author Ann Rule, in her account of Cunningham's life, describes his boyhood as troubled, suggesting early familial or personal challenges that impacted his development, though public details on specific events or family dynamics are sparse.^[3][9]

Professional Career and Financial Maneuvers

Bradly Cunningham commenced his professional career in banking after attending the University of Washington, where he had excelled as a football player. Initially based in Seattle, he advanced to roles involving lending and financial services before relocating to Portland, Oregon, in the early 1980s, continuing in the banking sector with a focus on commercial loans.^[6][10] By the mid-1980s, Cunningham shifted toward real estate entrepreneurship, securing large loans for commercial developments amid Oregon's economic landscape. A key venture, Parkwood Plaza, involved substantial borrowing that exposed him to high repayment risks; the project's failure precipitated a financial collapse, with Cunningham attributing it to external factors while facing repayment obligations he could not meet.^[11] These setbacks intertwined with personal financial strategies, as Cunningham frequently exerted control over household finances in his marriages, drawing on spouses' earnings for lifestyle maintenance and business pursuits. During his 1985-1986 separation from Cheryl Keeton, a high-earning attorney, acrimonious disputes emerged over asset allocation, child support, and his accumulating debts, including real estate defaults. In 1989, he faced appellate litigation from Main Street Asset Corporation over a property-related claim, underscoring ongoing creditor conflicts from his development loans.^[12][13][11] Post-separation, Cunningham's financial distress persisted, requiring bailouts from subsequent relationships to avert further insolvency, as evidenced by his reliance on a new partner's resources amid unresolved liabilities.^[13]

Prior Marriages and Patterns of Behavior

Bradley Morris Cunningham had three marriages prior to his 1982 union with Cheryl Keeton, his fourth wife. These earlier relationships produced three children in total and were fraught with reported instances of control, infidelity, and violence.^[14] His first marriage, to a high school acquaintance, ended amid allegations of physical abuse and threats, including statements that if he struck his wife, he would kill her. A consistent pattern emerged across these marriages: Cunningham demanded compliance in dress and behavior, isolated spouses from support networks, and engaged in physical aggression when challenged. This conduct extended to mistreatment of children from these unions, whom he viewed as extensions of his authority rather than independent individuals. Such behaviors echoed his adolescent history of violence toward his mother and sisters, suggesting a continuity of domineering traits unmitigated by prior relationships or legal consequences.^[15] By age 38, Cunningham had wed five times, fathering six children overall, with the prior marriages highlighting financial manipulations alongside emotional and physical coercion to maintain dominance. Ex-spouses' accounts, corroborated through interviews and legal inquiries, portrayed him as a charismatic initial partner who rapidly devolved into a source of fear, prioritizing possession over partnership.^[16][7]

Cheryl Keeton's Background

Early Life and Education

Cheryl Keeton was born on October 27, 1949, in Longview, Washington, to Floyd Conway Keeton (1924–2005) and Betty Marie Wilson Keeton (1926–2006).^[17] She grew up in a neat, cozy house on a tree-lined street near Long Park in that city.^[18] Keeton attended R.A. Long High School in Longview, graduating fifth in her class at age 17 in 1967. She then pursued higher education at the University of Washington, earning a bachelor's degree in economics.^[19] Following her undergraduate studies, Keeton enrolled at Northwestern School of Law (now Lewis & Clark Law School) in Portland, Oregon, where she completed her legal education and obtained her juris doctor degree, laying the foundation for her subsequent career as a litigator.^[19]

Legal Career and Personal Achievements

Cheryl Keeton graduated from high school ranked fifth in her class at age seventeen. She subsequently earned a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Washington, where she was a member of the Gamma Phi Beta sorority. Following her undergraduate studies, Keeton attended law school and was practicing as an attorney by 1981, initially in Seattle, Washington.^[20] Keeton's legal career focused on litigation, and she was affiliated with a prominent firm handling a broad range of matters, including business law. In late 1984, she relocated to Portland, Oregon, to assume a partnership position at the firm, marking a significant professional advancement. By the time of her death in 1986, at age 36, she had established herself as a top litigator and respected figure in the Portland legal community.^[5][21]

The Cunningham-Keeton Relationship

Initial Meeting and Marriage

Cheryl Keeton, then a law student at the University of Puget Sound in Seattle, met Michael Bradly Cunningham, a banker at Rainier Bank, in the late 1970s through mutual social circles.^[22] Their courtship progressed rapidly, leading to marriage on March 17, 1979, when Keeton was approximately two months pregnant with their first son, Michael Bradly Cunningham Jr. The wedding was a small civil ceremony, with Cunningham reportedly restricting attendance to exclude Keeton's family members. Following Keeton's graduation from law school in 1980, the couple relocated to Portland, Oregon, where she joined the firm of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt as an associate attorney specializing in tax and estate planning.^[22] Cunningham continued his career in banking, initially at U.S. Bank, while the couple welcomed two more sons in 1981 and 1983, establishing a family unit that outwardly appeared stable in its early years.

Family Dynamics and Children

Bradly Morris Cunningham and Cheryl Keeton married on October 2, 1982, in Seattle, Washington, and relocated to Portland, Oregon, where they had three sons born between 1983 and 1985.^[23] Initially, the family appeared stable, with Keeton continuing her career as an attorney while Cunningham pursued business ventures; however, tensions emerged as Cunningham displayed possessive and domineering tendencies toward his wife and children, often dictating family decisions and isolating Keeton from support networks.^[22] As marital discord intensified, disputes over the children became central, with frequent arguments about discipline, schooling, and daily care reflecting Cunningham's rigid control.^[23] In spring 1986, following a heated public confrontation with Keeton over which school one of their sons would attend, she resolved to seek sole custody, citing Cunningham's volatile temper and unwillingness to compromise.^[24] Throughout the divorce proceedings initiated earlier that year, the couple engaged in ongoing conflicts regarding visitation and parenting, exacerbating Keeton's concerns about Cunningham's fitness as a father.^[22] Keeton confided to multiple associates her fear that awarding Cunningham custody would endanger her life and the boys', based on his pattern of threats and emotional manipulation within the household.^[22] Cunningham had explicitly warned Keeton that if she attempted to remove the children from his influence, he would kill her and them, a statement corroborated in investigative records and trial evidence as indicative of his possessive view of the family unit.^[22] These dynamics underscored a household marked by coercion rather than mutual parenting, with the children—then aged approximately one to three—positioned as pawns in the escalating power struggle.^[24]

Escalation of Conflicts and Custody Disputes

The marriage between Cheryl Keeton and Brad Cunningham deteriorated following their relocation to Oregon in 1985, prompting Cunningham to move out of the family home.^[2] In February 1986, Keeton filed for divorce, with the trial scheduled for October 1986 amid disputes over assets and custody of their three sons, then aged 6, 4, and 2.^[2][24] Custody arrangements were shared pending the divorce outcome, with Cunningham receiving the children from Friday at 7:00 p.m. to Sunday at 7:00 p.m.^[24] Conflicts escalated over child-related decisions, including a bitter public argument regarding enrollment of their eldest son in school, after which Keeton sought sole custody.^[24] A psychologist's evaluation in spring 1986 favored Keeton for custody, citing her intimidation by Cunningham's aggressive and bombastic behavior.^[2] Cunningham displayed intimidating conduct in multiple incidents, such as a confrontation at the children's preschool in spring 1986.^[2] Keeton confided to a friend about threats from Cunningham, reflecting her growing apprehension.^[24] Following a deposition on September 16, 1986, Cunningham allegedly threatened to kill Keeton while using derogatory language toward her.^[2] Tensions intensified further in the days before Keeton's death. On September 18, 1986, the divorce court denied Cunningham's request for a substantial delay in proceedings, rescheduling the trial by only one week.^[25] During a soccer game on September 20, 1986, Cunningham became upset and moved the children to avoid contact with Keeton.^[24] The following day, September 21, after the weekend visitation ended, Cunningham delayed returning the children, claiming car trouble and refusing to provide their location, which led Keeton to pursue a meeting with him.^[2][24] These events underscored the rancorous atmosphere of the custody dispute in the preceding weeks.^[2]

The Murder of Cheryl Keeton

Circumstances Leading to September 21, 1986

Cheryl Keeton filed for divorce from Bradly Morris Cunningham in February 1986, amid a contentious battle over custody of their three sons, then aged six, four, and two.^[24] The divorce trial was scheduled to commence in early October 1986, with both parents seeking full custody; an interim agreement allowed Cunningham visitation from Friday evenings at 7:00 p.m. until Sunday evenings at 7:00 p.m.^{[24] [2]} Tensions escalated due to disputes, including a public argument over one child's preschool enrollment in spring 1986 and conflicts regarding school choices, prompting Keeton to pursue sole custody.^[2] Keeton had expressed ongoing fears of Cunningham, citing his threats and intimidating conduct, which were corroborated by observations from a psychologist evaluating the family.^[24] On September 16, 1986, Cunningham reportedly threatened, "I'll kill Cheryl," during a conversation, followed by hostile phone calls.^[2] Three days later, on September 19, he collected the children for visitation while angry over perceived falsehoods in Keeton's recent deposition testimony.^[24] The following evening, September 20, at a soccer game, Cunningham relocated the boys to evade Keeton, who informed a friend of a threat he had made against her.^[24] On September 21, 1986, Cunningham claimed car trouble prevented the timely return of the children and withheld his location, prompting Keeton's distress. At 7:11 p.m., she hysterically informed her mother of the situation and contemplated involving police.^[24] By 7:30 p.m., speaking to her brother, Keeton described the delay as a "typical maneuver" by Cunningham, while crying and upset.^[24] At 7:59 p.m., she told her mother she would meet Cunningham alone at a Mobil gas station near an IGA store to retrieve the boys, rejecting offers of accompaniment despite her evident reluctance.^{[24] [2]} Keeton departed shortly thereafter, and her body was later discovered beaten between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on the Sunset Highway (U.S. Route 26).^[2]

Discovery of the Body and Forensic Evidence

On September 21, 1986, Cheryl Keeton's body was discovered around 8:30 p.m. inside her Toyota van on Oregon's Sunset Highway (U.S. Route 26) near Portland, after a motorist stopped traffic upon noticing the idling vehicle partially blocking the lane. Authorities found Keeton positioned head-first on the passenger-side floorboard, with her feet propped on the driver's seat; the engine was running, and her purse was stuffed onto the accelerator, consistent with an attempt to stage the scene as an accident or mechanical failure.^[2] The location was approximately three-tenths of a mile from an IGA grocery store and Mobil gas station, where Keeton had planned to meet her estranged husband, Michael Brad Cunningham, for a child custody handover involving their two young sons. Earlier witness accounts placed the van idling nearby around 8:00 p.m., possibly with two figures in the front seats and a child in the rear, though an infant car seat was present at the scene without the child. Initial observations noted blood spatter patterns and the victim's condition as inconsistent with a vehicular collision, prompting homicide investigators rather than traffic authorities to take lead.^[2] Autopsy findings established that Keeton had been killed prior to the van's placement on the highway, succumbing to blunt force trauma from approximately 25 blows to the head delivered by an unidentified object. These injuries included fractures to both her upper and lower jaws, with the pattern of wounds indicating a targeted, close-range assault rather than incidental impact from a hit-and-run. Forensic analysis of the scene yielded a hair containing nuclear DNA contaminants matching Cunningham's profile, though the rarity was limited to about 10% of the general population; no fingerprints attributable to the defendant were recovered from the van or immediate surroundings.^[2][22]

Immediate Suspicions and Motive Analysis

Following the discovery of Cheryl Keeton's body on September 21, 1986, in her stationary van on the Sunset Highway near Portland, Oregon, authorities determined the death was a homicide rather than a traffic accident, as the 35 blunt-force injuries to her head were inconsistent with vehicular impact and indicated deliberate beating with an unidentified object.^[23] The staging of the scene—leaving the vehicle in a traffic lane to invite collisions and obscure evidence—further suggested intentional murder, prompting investigators to prioritize personal relationships over random violence.^[23] Keeton's family immediately voiced suspicions toward her estranged husband, Bradly Morris Cunningham, citing the timing amid their volatile separation.^[26] Cunningham emerged as the primary suspect due to the couple's protracted and hostile divorce proceedings, initiated earlier in 1986, which encompassed disputes over assets, alimony, and custody of their three young sons born between 1982 and 1985.^[24] Keeton, a successful attorney, had recently escalated demands for sole custody following a public altercation with Cunningham over one child's schooling, positioning her to potentially expose his controlling behavior and limit his parental access.^[24] Law enforcement noted Cunningham's lack of verifiable alibi for the evening of the murder, combined with reports from Keeton's associates of her expressed fears during custody negotiations, which centered suspicions on him within days of the autopsy confirmation on September 22, 1986.^[22] Motive analysis by investigators and later prosecutors centered on Cunningham's prospective gains from Keeton's elimination: full control over the children without contest, evasion of substantial financial settlements given Keeton's higher earning potential as a litigator, and termination of her efforts to document alleged family violence in court filings.^[23] Court records from the divorce highlighted acrimony, including Keeton's stress-related health decline attributed to dealings with Cunningham, underscoring a pattern where her death resolved his immediate legal adversities.^[22] While Cunningham maintained innocence, claiming professional commitments distanced him from the scene, the absence of alternative suspects and alignment of the murder's logistics with his disputes reinforced the focus on interpersonal causation over coincidence.^[24]

Investigation and Prosecution

Key Evidence and Witness Testimonies

The autopsy of Cheryl Keeton revealed she had sustained 21 to 25 blows to the head from a blunt object, consistent with a hammer or similar tool, causing massive trauma that led to her death; the injuries were not survivable, and the scene was staged to resemble a vehicular accident with the van's engine running in neutral on the shoulder of U.S. Highway 26.^[2] No murder weapon was recovered, and fingerprints were absent from the van's interior, though a single hair found inside matched defendant's DNA profile, which occurred in approximately 10% of the male Caucasian population.^[2] Witness testimonies established a tight timeline linking defendant Bradly Cunningham to the murder window. Keeton's mother testified to two phone calls from her daughter on September 21, 1986: at 7:11 p.m., Keeton sounded hysterical, reporting Cunningham's excuse of car trouble and the unexplained absence of their children; at 7:59 p.m., she was resolute, stating she would meet Cunningham at a Mobil station to retrieve the children.^[2] The six-year-old son, Tyler, recounted that during a movie at their apartment, Cunningham left with toddler Travis around 8:00 p.m. and returned later, claiming he had gone jogging; this alibi conflicted with other accounts.^[2] Cunningham's then-girlfriend, Karen Hermens, described his agitation following a deposition two days prior, including threats like "If I ever hit you, I'll kill you," directed at Keeton in reference to past incidents; she also noted his high-pitched, breathless 9:00 p.m. call reporting "car trouble" and his evasive behavior upon returning home.^[2] An acquaintance observed Cunningham with Travis in a parking garage between 7:30 and 7:35 p.m., placing him near the route to the murder site.^[2] Nearby residents reported hearing banging sounds, a dog's barking, and seeing the van around 8:00 p.m., aligning with the estimated time of death.^[2] A grand jury in January 1993 reviewed testimonies from 91 witnesses over several weeks, focusing on Cunningham's history of controlling behavior, prior assaults on Keeton and ex-wives, and inconsistencies in his post-murder statements to investigators, which evolved from denying any meeting with Keeton to admitting brief contact but claiming mechanical issues prevented further interaction.^[2] These elements, absent direct eyewitnesses to the killing, formed the circumstantial core of the prosecution's case, emphasizing motive tied to ongoing custody disputes and financial pressures from divorce proceedings.^[2]

Challenges in Building the Case

Prosecutors faced significant hurdles in linking Bradly Michael Cunningham directly to Cheryl Keeton's bludgeoning death on September 21, 1986, primarily due to the absence of physical evidence or eyewitnesses tying him to the crime scene on U.S. Highway 26 near Portland, Oregon. Forensic analysis of Keeton's Toyota van and body revealed she had been struck approximately 19 times with a blunt object resembling a baseball bat, but no such weapon was recovered with Cunningham's fingerprints or other traces, and early testing yielded no DNA or biological material implicating him, as advanced forensic techniques like DNA profiling were not yet standard in 1986 investigations.^[24][16] The five-year gap between the murder and Cunningham's indictment in 1991 stemmed from insufficient probable cause for immediate arrest, forcing investigators to rely on circumstantial indicators such as motive from the ongoing acrimonious divorce and child custody dispute, where Cunningham sought full control over their three sons and stood to benefit from Keeton's $300,000 life insurance policy. Initial alibis provided by Cunningham, including claims of being with associates in the Portland area, could not be definitively disproven without direct contradiction, complicating opportunity establishment despite inconsistencies in his timeline noted by detectives.^[7][23] Building a viable case necessitated compiling a pattern of prior domestic abuse allegations from Cunningham's previous marriages and Keeton's own documented fears, expressed to friends and therapists about his threats to kill her if she left, but these statements risked exclusion as hearsay, requiring careful corroboration through diaries, witnesses, and a prior 1988 civil wrongful death verdict against him that affirmed liability by a preponderance of evidence standard. This civil finding, while not binding criminally, highlighted systemic challenges in transitioning from civil to criminal thresholds, as prosecutors had to elevate circumstantial threads—like Cunningham's history of controlling behavior and financial manipulations—into proof beyond reasonable doubt amid his self-presentation as a credible attorney.^[5][22]

The Trial

Prosecution Strategy and Arguments

The prosecution, led by Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Michael Schrunk, pursued a circumstantial case against Bradly Morris Cunningham Sr., emphasizing premeditated murder over the defense's accident theory, given the absence of eyewitnesses or direct physical links like fingerprints or DNA conclusively tying him to the scene.^[2] They argued the killing occurred amid an acrimonious custody dispute, where Cunningham stood to gain sole control of their three sons—Jess, Michael, and Phillip—following a September 1986 custody evaluation favoring Cheryl Keeton as primary parent, compounded by her threats to expose his financial improprieties including bankruptcy fraud and tax evasion.^[27] Prosecutors portrayed Cunningham as exhibiting a lifelong pattern of controlling and violent behavior toward women, supported by testimonies from his prior wives, such as Loni Ann Waterman, who detailed physical assaults, threats like "If I ever hit you, I'll kill you," and attempts to isolate her, establishing a modus operandi of escalating abuse to maintain dominance.^[27] Forensic evidence formed the core of arguments debunking the staged vehicular accident, with medical examiner Dr. Larry Wilson testifying to 21-24 deliberate blunt-force blows to Keeton's head and face using a heavy object like a police-style flashlight, causing brain hemorrhage without skull fracture or defensive wounds consistent with a car crash; blood clotting and spatter patterns indicated the assault lasted 15-30 minutes and preceded any vehicle impact, with no alcohol in her system (0.0% BAC) and the van's positioning—crossed over lane lines on Sunset Highway with purse jammed on the accelerator—deliberately mimicking a fatal swerve to destroy evidence and implicate highway dangers.^[2][27] Witness accounts reinforced premeditation, including Keeton's hearsay statements admitted under exceptions for state of mind, such as her note to friend Jim Karr reading "If anything happens to me, Brad did it" and phone calls to her mother expressing fear of imminent death by Cunningham's hand, corroborated by ex-wife Karen Aaborg's recollection of his vow, "I'll kill Cheryl. I'll kill her," post-deposition.^[28][27] Circumstantial timeline evidence highlighted opportunity, with prosecutors demonstrating via reenactment that Cunningham could travel from his Madison Tower apartment to the West Slope murder site and return within 35-75 minutes during his unaccounted window (7:35-8:50 p.m. on September 21, 1986), contradicting his shifting alibis involving errands, laundry, and popcorn; son Jess's testimony noted Cunningham's return in a hunter's vest, followed by dishwashing sounds suggestive of cleanup.^[27] To counter self-defense or third-party guilt claims, the state discredited inconsistencies like Cunningham's post-murder flight to evade questioning, refusal to allow police interviews with the boys, and lack of remorse, while forensic hair on Keeton's arm matched a 1 in 10 Caucasian Portland profile consistent with Cunningham, though not definitive.^[27] The "overkill" nature of the blows, per blood spatter expert Lt. Rod Englert, underscored personal vendetta amid the custody war, where Keeton's death ensured Cunningham's interim custody and thwarted her February 1986 will revision excluding him.^[27] This multifaceted approach, blending motive, pattern evidence, and forensic refutation of accident staging, yielded an 11-1 guilty verdict on November 10, 1994, for intentional murder.^[5]

Cunningham's Self-Representation and Defense Claims

Cunningham, a former lawyer, elected to represent himself pro se during the 1994 murder trial in Washington County Circuit Court, Oregon, with the assistance of two standby attorney-advisors who provided advisory support but did not actively participate in the proceedings.^[29] This decision came after multiple prior attorneys withdrew or were dismissed amid contentious pretrial disputes, including disagreements over strategy and access to evidence. The advisors later moved for a competency evaluation during the trial, citing Cunningham's erratic courtroom behavior and inability to effectively manage the defense, though the motion was denied. His core defense strategy emphasized the absence of direct evidence tying him to the crime, asserting that no physical traces—such as fingerprints, DNA, or fibers—linked him to Keeton's van or the murder site on U.S. Route 26. Cunningham argued that the prosecution relied exclusively on circumstantial inferences drawn from the couple's acrimonious divorce and custody battle over their three young sons, which he portrayed as a biased narrative fueled by Keeton's family and supporters seeking to discredit him as a father. He challenged witness testimonies recounting his prior threats against Keeton, such as statements like "I'll kill Cheryl" made after a September 18, 1986, custody deposition, by cross-examining aggressively to highlight inconsistencies, potential motives for fabrication, and the hearsay nature of the victim's own expressions of fear.^[22] Cunningham suggested alternative explanations for the killing, implying involvement by unknown parties possibly connected to Keeton's alleged extramarital affairs with lawyers or encounters at truck stops, where she purportedly socialized with transients—claims he raised to detectives early in the investigation to deflect suspicion. He did not testify in his own defense but presented limited witnesses, including character references and experts to question forensic timelines and the reliability of blood spatter analysis indicating a prolonged beating consistent with personal animus rather than a random attack. Throughout, he maintained absolute innocence, framing the case as a wrongful prosecution driven by emotional prejudice rather than forensic proof, though the jury convicted him of first-degree murder on November 21, 1994, after eight days of deliberations.^[22][23]

Jury Deliberations and Verdict

The jury deliberated for approximately five hours before convicting Bradly Morris Cunningham of first-degree murder on December 22, 1994.^[30] The verdict followed a contentious trial in Washington County Circuit Court, where Cunningham had represented himself pro se with advisory counsel, emphasizing circumstantial evidence of abuse, financial motives, and witness testimonies linking him to the crime scene.^[2][22] Oregon law at the time classified the offense as murder rather than aggravated murder, reflecting the prosecution's strategy to prove intentional killing amid ongoing divorce proceedings valued at millions in assets.^[23]

Post-Trial Developments

Sentencing and Incarceration

Following his conviction for the aggravated murder of Cheryl Keeton on November 18, 1994, Michael J. Cunningham was sentenced to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of 22 years before becoming eligible for parole consideration.^[22][14] The sentencing occurred in Multnomah County Circuit Court, where Judge Ancer L. Haggerty imposed the penalty, reflecting Oregon's statutory framework for aggravated murder that precludes the death penalty but mandates life terms under ORS 163.095 and 163.150.^[22] Cunningham began serving his sentence at Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem, Oregon, the state's maximum-security facility for long-term inmates, shortly after sentencing.^[5] In 1996, the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision reviewed his case and concluded that he would never be released on parole, citing the severity of the crime and his lack of remorse as demonstrated in trial evidence.^[5] Despite formal parole eligibility arising around 2014 after the 22-year minimum, subsequent hearings have consistently denied release, maintaining his incarceration as of the latest available records.^[14]

Appeals Process and Legal Outcomes

Following his conviction for the murder of Cheryl Keeton on December 22, 1994, Bradley Morris Cunningham appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, raising multiple assignments of error, including the improper admission of hearsay statements Keeton had made to her psychologist about fears of harm from Cunningham.^[2] In a 2002 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, determining that the trial court had erred in admitting those statements under Oregon Evidence Code exceptions, as they did not qualify as statements for medical diagnosis or treatment.^[5] The state sought review from the Oregon Supreme Court, which allowed the petition and, in a October 21, 2004, ruling, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision.^[24] The Supreme Court held that Keeton's statements to her psychologist were admissible under OEC 803(4) as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, given the context of domestic abuse evaluation, thereby reinstating the original conviction without necessitating a retrial.^{[24] [5]} Cunningham's subsequent efforts, including a 2004 petition for pardon based in part on claims of media influence from Ann Rule's book, were denied by Oregon authorities.^[31] No federal habeas corpus relief was granted, and the life sentence with a minimum term before parole eligibility—imposed after the 1994 trial—was upheld, confining Cunningham to Oregon state prison.^[5] The appellate process affirmed the jury's verdict reliant on circumstantial evidence, such as a hair matching Cunningham found in Keeton's van and witness accounts of his controlling behavior, without overturning key trial rulings on DNA or other forensics.^[32]

Cunningham's Later Life and Death

Following the final denial of his appeals by the Oregon Supreme Court in 2004 and the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2005, Bradly Morris Cunningham continued serving his life sentence in the Oregon state prison system.^[5][24] The sentence, imposed after his 1994 conviction for first-degree murder, carried no possibility of release for at least 25 years.^[16] No significant public records detail Cunningham's activities or behavior during his decades of incarceration, though he reportedly maintained claims of innocence consistent with his trial defense.^[5] Oregon Department of Corrections policies for long-term inmates include structured routines of work, education, and rehabilitation programs, but specific participation by Cunningham remains undocumented in available reports. Cunningham, born in 1948, has remained in custody as of the latest verifiable data, with no reported release, parole, or death.^[33] His case has not generated further legal or media attention post-2005, reflecting the finality of the judicial outcomes.

Ann Rule's Account

Research and Writing Process

Ann Rule's research for Dead by Sunset relied heavily on court transcripts from Bradley Cunningham's 1994 murder trial in Portland, Oregon, where his self-representation led to extensive on-the-stand testimony that obviated the need for a personal interview, allowing her to incorporate his claims directly from the record.^[34] Drawing on her prior experience as a Seattle police officer and crisis clinic volunteer, Rule cross-referenced police reports, autopsy findings, and witness statements from the 1986 crime scene investigation along U.S. Route 26, where Cheryl Keeton was found bludgeoned to death in her vehicle on September 21.^[35] She also delved into public records detailing Cunningham's four prior marriages, financial schemes, and custody battles, revealing patterns of manipulation and abuse corroborated by divorce filings and civil judgments. To humanize the victim and contextualize the domestic violence, Rule conducted interviews with Keeton's mother, Kaye Collins, her four young sons, and close associates, who described escalating threats, physical assaults, and Cunningham's coercive control tactics in the years leading to the killing.^[14] Prosecutorial sources, including Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schrunk's office, provided access to forensic evidence like blood spatter analysis and tire track impressions linking Cunningham's van to the scene, while defense-aligned records highlighted his counterclaims of frame-ups and infidelity accusations. This multifaceted sourcing enabled Rule to construct a chronological narrative spanning Cunningham's Idaho upbringing, entrepreneurial ventures, and legal maneuvers, emphasizing empirical discrepancies between his polished persona and documented volatility. The writing process accelerated in 1995 to synchronize with NBC's two-part miniseries adaptation, with Rule forwarding manuscript chapters concurrently to publisher Simon & Schuster and network executives to facilitate script integration and meet the November 19-20 air dates.^[14] This dual-track effort culminated in the hardcover release on September 26, 1995, comprising 429 pages of detailed reconstruction without fictional embellishment, though Rule noted in promotional discussions her reliance on verifiable data over speculative psychology.^[3] Her methodology prioritized victim advocacy through factual aggregation, avoiding unsubstantiated perpetrator rationalizations while critiquing the trial's procedural anomalies, such as Cunningham's pro se disruptions.

Key Themes and Interpretations in the Book

In "Dead by Sunset," Ann Rule examines the theme of deceptive charm masking profound malignancy, portraying Brad Cunningham as a charismatic entrepreneur whose outward success and appeal concealed a pattern of emotional, financial, and physical abuse across five marriages.^[6] Rule illustrates how Cunningham's manipulation exploited intelligent, accomplished women, including victim Cheryl Keeton, a Stanford-educated lawyer, by alternating affection with control, escalating to violence amid custody disputes over their sons.^[1] This duality underscores the book's interpretation of abusers as predators who thrive on dominance, financially draining partners while projecting stability, as evidenced by Cunningham's history of business failures and debts hidden behind a facade of competence.^[6] Rule's psychological retrospective frames Cunningham as a sadistic, self-centered sociopath whose behaviors stemmed from a troubled upbringing, including resentment toward his Native American heritage and early familial violence, fostering contempt for women and a need for absolute control, even over children.^[36] The narrative interprets his actions not as isolated incidents but as a consistent trajectory from eccentricity to premeditated murder, with Keeton's 1986 bludgeoning death—her body left in a van on an Oregon highway—exemplifying the lethal endpoint of unchecked narcissism and rage during separation.^[1] Rule emphasizes red flags like possessive jealousy and alienation tactics, drawing from interviews and records to caution against romanticizing such "perfect husbands."^[6] Broader interpretations in the book critique systemic delays in justice, as Cunningham evaded charges for years post-murder, only facing conviction in a 1993 trial after a 1991 civil suit established liability, highlighting how charisma and self-representation can prolong accountability.^[1] Rule portrays the trial's bizarre elements—Cunningham's pro se defense rife with outbursts—as revealing his delusional grandiosity, ultimately leading to a minimum 22-year sentence, yet she notes a controversial "redemption" arc in his later prison behavior, tempering the narrative with ambivalence toward reform in irredeemable personalities.^[6] These themes collectively interpret domestic violence as a calculable progression toward homicide, urging empirical vigilance over intuition in relationships.^[36]

Publication Details and Commercial Success

Dead by Sunset: Perfect Husband, Perfect Killer? was initially published in hardcover by Simon & Schuster in September 1995.^[3] The book spans 544 pages and details the investigation and trial related to the 1986 murder of Cheryl Keeton by her estranged husband, Brad Cunningham.^[9] A mass-market paperback edition followed from Pocket Books on April 1, 1996, with ISBN 978-0671001131, priced at $6.99.^{[9] [37]} The book achieved commercial success as a New York Times bestseller in the mass-market paperback category. It appeared on the list in April 1996, reflecting strong reader interest in Rule's account of Cunningham's manipulative persona and the forensic evidence leading to his conviction.^[37] By May 1996, it maintained its position, underscoring sustained sales amid competition from other true crime titles.^[38] Publisher support included a $125,000 advertising and promotional budget, along with an author tour to boost visibility.^[39] Audiobook versions were later released, narrated by Richard Ferrone, further extending its reach, with the unabridged edition running 20 hours and 38 minutes.^[40]

Media and Cultural Impact

Television Adaptation

In 1995, Ann Rule's Dead by Sunset was adapted into a two-part television miniseries of the same name, dramatizing the 1986 murder of Portland attorney Cheryl Keeton by her estranged husband, Bradley Morris Cunningham, and the subsequent investigation and trial.^[41] The production, co-executive produced by Rule herself, emphasized themes of domestic abuse and deception, portraying Cunningham as a charismatic yet sociopathic figure who concealed a history of infidelity, violence, and manipulation from his relationships and family.^[42] Directed by Karen Arthur and written by Rule alongside Wesley Bishop, the miniseries starred Ken Olin in the lead role of Cunningham, delivering a performance noted for capturing the character's duplicitous charm and underlying menace; Annette O'Toole portrayed the victim Keeton, while Lindsay Frost played Sara Gordon, a subsequent partner who aided in exposing Cunningham's deceptions.^[41] Supporting cast included John Terry as detective Mike Shinn and Sally Murphy as Keeton's sister Susan.^[43] The script drew directly from Rule's investigative reporting, incorporating trial testimony, witness accounts, and forensic details to reconstruct events, though it condensed the multi-year legal proceedings for dramatic pacing.^[44] The miniseries premiered on NBC on November 19, 1995, with the second part airing the following day, November 20, attracting viewership through its true-crime format amid growing popularity of such adaptations in the mid-1990s.^[45] Critics acknowledged its effectiveness in highlighting patterns of spousal battering and the challenges of prosecuting evasive abusers, though some described it as melodramatic, prioritizing emotional intensity over procedural nuance.^[42] It received a 6.7/10 rating on IMDb from over 450 user reviews, reflecting mixed reception for its acting and fidelity to the source material versus perceived sensationalism.^[41] The adaptation contributed to Rule's influence in translating her books to screen, predating similar Lifetime network true-crime projects but aligning with network TV's era of event miniseries.^[46]

Public Reception and True Crime Genre Influence

"Dead by Sunset" received strong praise from true crime readers for its detailed psychological portrait of Brad Cunningham, a charismatic abuser whose manipulations spanned multiple relationships, culminating in the 1986 bludgeoning death of his wife Cheryl Keeton. On Goodreads, the book holds a 4.1 out of 5 rating from over 9,000 users, with reviewers frequently highlighting Rule's ability to weave court documents, interviews, and timelines into a narrative that exposes patterns of domestic violence and financial fraud.^[47] Publishers Weekly commended Rule's "perceptive character analysis of a malignant, self-centered, charismatic con artist," noting the chilling depth of the portrait drawn from trial evidence and witness accounts.^[15] Critical reviews emphasized the book's suspenseful structure, akin to fiction despite its nonfiction basis. Kirkus Reviews called it "sufficiently creepy stuff from the master of true crime," observing that the narrative plotting surpassed the disjointed real-life murder plot, achieved through Rule's chronological reconstruction of Cunningham's life from troubled youth to his 1995 conviction.^[1] A 1997 analysis in Notes in the Margin praised Rule's nonfiction techniques—such as foreshadowing and character development—for creating riveting suspense without fabricating events, drawing on verified legal records and family testimonies.^[30] Some detractors, however, pointed to repetitive details on Cunningham's schemes and excessive financial minutiae as bloating the 448-page volume, potentially diluting focus on the core homicide investigation.^[48] The book reinforced Ann Rule's role in shaping the true crime genre by exemplifying her signature blend of empathetic victim advocacy and forensic detail, a style that popularized psychological profiling of perpetrators within accessible, novel-like prose. Rule's approach in "Dead by Sunset"—integrating law enforcement insights from her own experience as a former Seattle police officer with exhaustive research into abuse cycles—helped standardize the genre's emphasis on cautionary tales of undetected predators in everyday settings.^[49] This work, alongside Rule's broader oeuvre, elevated true crime from tabloid sensationalism to structured narratives prioritizing evidentiary rigor, influencing subsequent authors to prioritize survivor perspectives and long-term behavioral patterns over mere crime recaps.^[50] By 1995, when the book detailed Cunningham's Oregon trial outcome of life imprisonment without parole, it underscored the genre's growing cultural function in demystifying spousal homicide risks, evidenced by its alignment with rising public awareness of intimate partner violence in the 1990s.^[51]

Controversies Surrounding Portrayals

Michael Douglas Cunningham, convicted of murdering his wife Cheryl Keeton in 1986 and using the alias Brad Cunningham, has disputed the accuracy of portrayals in Ann Rule's Dead by Sunset. In his 2014 self-published ebook Ann Rule Deconstructed: Perfect Writer, Perfect Liar, Cunningham alleged that Rule fabricated details about his life, relationships, and the events leading to Keeton's death, claiming "literally nothing" in the book was true.^[52] He further asserted that the book's depictions caused irreparable harm to his family, particularly his children, by portraying him as a sociopathic abuser with multiple personality disorders.^[8] Cunningham's rebuttal, written from prison where he was serving a life sentence without parole following his 1990 conviction, frames Rule's narrative as sensationalized fiction rather than factual reporting, despite her reliance on trial testimony, police investigations, and interviews with Keeton's associates.^[53] Critics of true crime literature, including some reviewers, have noted that Rule's works often emphasize dramatic elements drawn from prosecutorial perspectives, potentially amplifying victim narratives at the expense of balanced scrutiny, though no independent verification has substantiated Cunningham's specific claims of wholesale invention.^[31] The 1995 NBC miniseries adaptation, directed by Karen Arthur and starring Ken Olin as Cunningham and Lindsay Frost as Keeton, closely followed Rule's book and drew limited criticism for its melodramatic tone, with one review describing it as "juicy melodrama" suited to true-crime audiences but potentially oversimplifying complex interpersonal dynamics. No significant disputes over factual inaccuracies in the television portrayal emerged from involved parties, though the production's focus on domestic abuse themes aligned with Rule's interpretation, reinforcing the image of Cunningham as a manipulative predator without incorporating his counter-narrative.^[42]