peachysquirt21
01-29-2007, 05:36 PM
I searched the forum but didnt find anything on this case. I was just wondering if there was any new info on the case of Michael Martin who was accused back in 1979 of armed robbery of a gas station in Garland Texas?
The problem with this case is 5 eyewitnesses claimed that Martin could not have robbed this gas station cause he was at home the time this robbery was to have taken place 70 miles away.
He was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parol till 1999. This was cause he had a previous arrest.
There was no physical evidence to point Martin to this crime. The gun that was used was not recovered the time UM aired this segment.
His previous arrest was 7 months before this happened in a supermarket over an altercation. Him & a friend was in this supermarket drunk eating food from shelves. Once they got to the register to pay for what they had, the store manager came up to them & threatened to call the police, Martin panicked & pulled a knife on the employees. They ran out of the store & before Martin got into the car, pulled out a gun & fired it multiple times in the air.
The person who robbed the gas station stole the employees car. The robbery took place around 7pm, the car was spotted by this apartment building around 7:15pm where Martin had lived only a month before. Around 7:25 pm one of the detectives who investigated the supermarket altercation, claims he saw Martin in his camero 3 blocks from the gas station.
3 of the witnesses barely knew him. 2 of the witnesses claim they are certain he could not have comitted this crime cause they was waiting for a certain show to come on at 7pm & say Martin was there to watch this show.
The jury only took 15 minutes to come to a guilty verdict.
I'm not sure what to think about this case cause you have 5 witnesses who claim they was with Martin or saw him around the time this robbery took place but then you have a detective who claims he saw Martin around 25 minutes after this robbery took place. 3 of the witnesses barely knew him so I dont know why they would lie about seeing him. I think him being arrested previously played a role in him getting convicted on this charge. Then again I could be wrong.
If anyone knows anything on this case, please post here. I have always wondered if Martin got out early or was even paroled in 1999.
The problem with this case is 5 eyewitnesses claimed that Martin could not have robbed this gas station cause he was at home the time this robbery was to have taken place 70 miles away.
He was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parol till 1999. This was cause he had a previous arrest.
There was no physical evidence to point Martin to this crime. The gun that was used was not recovered the time UM aired this segment.
His previous arrest was 7 months before this happened in a supermarket over an altercation. Him & a friend was in this supermarket drunk eating food from shelves. Once they got to the register to pay for what they had, the store manager came up to them & threatened to call the police, Martin panicked & pulled a knife on the employees. They ran out of the store & before Martin got into the car, pulled out a gun & fired it multiple times in the air.
The person who robbed the gas station stole the employees car. The robbery took place around 7pm, the car was spotted by this apartment building around 7:15pm where Martin had lived only a month before. Around 7:25 pm one of the detectives who investigated the supermarket altercation, claims he saw Martin in his camero 3 blocks from the gas station.
3 of the witnesses barely knew him. 2 of the witnesses claim they are certain he could not have comitted this crime cause they was waiting for a certain show to come on at 7pm & say Martin was there to watch this show.
The jury only took 15 minutes to come to a guilty verdict.
I'm not sure what to think about this case cause you have 5 witnesses who claim they was with Martin or saw him around the time this robbery took place but then you have a detective who claims he saw Martin around 25 minutes after this robbery took place. 3 of the witnesses barely knew him so I dont know why they would lie about seeing him. I think him being arrested previously played a role in him getting convicted on this charge. Then again I could be wrong.
If anyone knows anything on this case, please post here. I have always wondered if Martin got out early or was even paroled in 1999.