Were any of the final appealants actually guilty? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

wiseguy182 · 02-19-2010, 07:01 AM

It seems like somebody started a thread called "were any of the final appealants actually innocent" and I remember disagreeing with most of what that poster had to say about it, but I can't find that thread. I believe that most of the final appealants are actually innocent and decided to do my own version. I won't try to rehash too much, but rather give a brief synopsis on each one.

1. Glen Consagra ~ haven't watched this one in years and am fuzzy on the details, but I could go either way on this one.

2. Michael Scott Martin ~ debated quite a bit here on the forum and I've always leaned towards innocence. I have huge problems with how Martin was treated during his only run in with the law previous to this incident, the credibility of the witness, and why Martin was even included in the line-up to begin with. I normally don't put a lot of stock into eyewitness accounts, but in this case there were no less than 5 people who verified Martin's alibi, several of whom hardly knew him and had nothing to gain either way.

3. Dr. John Branion ~ even if he could have made it to his residence from his office in time (which is a huge if), he would have to have alot of chutzpah to allow his child to walk in on his mother's murder like that.

4. Johnny Lee Wilson ~ innocent. not really much else to say here.

5. Patty Stallings ~ ditto.

6. Larry Race ~ debated quite a bit here on the forum. I've leaned towards innocence. Jenny Lee was known to have been a faulty boat, so it's not like Larry's version of events is hard to believe. The prosecutions version of events is, on the other hand, hard to believe as they have him putting himself at death's door and having him do Herculean tasks if what they say is to be believed.

7. Dr. Jeffrey McDonald ~ highly debated and extremely controversial. I'll simply state that Helena Stoeckly seems to have an awful lot of inside information to not be involved in this somehow. She died under suspicious circumstances.

8. Port Chicago seaman. ~ innocent. no other comment.

9. Paul Ferrell. ~ ) I'll give you this one, he seemed pretty guilty to me.

10. Don Montecalvo ~ the neighbor (Susan?) knows too much to not be involved.

11. Bird Road rapist ~ at the very least, I think most everyone agreed if he was guilty, he at least didn't act alone. Which means he was (partially) imprisoned for crimes he didn't commit.

12. Rick McCue ~ Innocent. released from prison.

13. Rolando Cruz ~ he's innocent. the guy that confessed knew too much about the crime scene to not be involved.

14. John Purvis ~ Innocent. no other comment

15. Michael Lloyd Self ~ Innocent. only reason he became a suspect was due to some highly questionable tactics by two crooked cops. forced to confess by said cops who beaten, threatened, and intimidated him. Another man confessed and he knew too much about the case to not be involved.

16. Paul Freshour ~ at the very least, he couldn't have acted alone as the letters continued even after he was imprisoned.

17. Stuart Heaton ~ I've always leaned towards innocence. only reason he was suspected was because he was a carpenter with cuts on his hand, and happened to own a red truck. DNA evidence was degraded and highly questionable. Didn't seem to know victim. Another suspect who owned a red truck had a violent past, lived in the area and intimately knew Krystal Nabb

18. Tommy Ziegler ~ I could go either way on this one as there is mountains of evidence and it's hard to balance it all. However, there did seem to be strong evidence of someone else being responsible.

19. Frederick Young ~ been awhile since I've seen this one, but I think it's Cedrick, and not Frederick, who's responsible.

20. Darlie Routier ~ much debated and highly controversial. I've had a tough time buying that Darlie was guilty, she was almost killed herself. Suspicion of guilt based on silly string video is taken out of context and not very sound to begin with. I seem to recall the presence of DNA that didn't match anyone in the house.

So IMO, practically all of them range from 50-50 to downright innocent. At the very least, I think all of them deserved new trials back in the day, particularly in the cases of Dr. John Branion (needed a transplant, denied because of his imprisonment) and Rolando Cruz (was set to be executed).

unidentified · 02-19-2010, 09:32 AM

Quote:

7. Dr. Jeffrey McDonald ~ highly debated and extremely controversial. I'll simply state that Helena Stoeckly seems to have an awful lot of inside information to not be involved in this somehow. She died under suspicious circumstances.

You asking for opinions or actual facts? Opinion here...

Dr Jeffrey McDonald - Innocent. He was upholding his own morals in relation to illicit drug use and drug users in the hospital and got roughed up because of his stance which unfortunately became murder in the end. There is too much evidence which was not presented to ignore and too many ifs and buts surrounding the whole case. The military definitely put it all on the QT and very hush-hush.

kadrmas15 · 02-19-2010, 09:50 AM

Hmm, yes, I think a lot of these segments speak for themselves. I will say, Consagra, I have gone back and forth on him. I will say, if he was involved he was NOT the only one involved. I guess the fact that little twerp Doug Crow was involved makes it easier for me to believe in Consagra's innocence. Kidding on that. As much as I dislike Crow, I believe the physical evidence, while very weak against Consagra, and the case in general was weak against Consagra, but I tend to lean towards that he was involved, just that he did not act alone.

As for the opinions on most of the rest of the cases, I agree with wiseguy on those. Look up the threads and see my opinions.

Apostapler · 02-19-2010, 09:57 AM

I mostly agree with your opinions wiseguy, except on these:

Darlie Routier and Stuart Heaton. I think they are where they belong.

justins5256 · 02-19-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

Hmm, yes, I think a lot of these segments speak for themselves. I will say, Consagra, I have gone back and forth on him. I will say, if he was involved he was NOT the only one involved. I guess the fact that little twerp Doug Crow was involved makes it easier for me to believe in Consagra's innocence. Kidding on that. As much as I dislike Crow, I believe the physical evidence, while very weak against Consagra, and the case in general was weak against Consagra, but I tend to lean towards that he was involved, just that he did not act alone.

As for the opinions on most of the rest of the cases, I agree with wiseguy on those. Look up the threads and see my opinions.

Real strange thing I discovered with regard to Consagra: his attorneys (public defenders) filed a motion for post conviction relief in August 1982 and apparently went to the media with the story about how this man was innocent, the system screwed up, there was new evidence etc. etc. only to withdraw from their motion, without public explanation, two weeks later. A move that not only pissed off the DA, but the judge as well.

I sure would like to know why this was done. The only thing I can figure is that Donna recanted. Her statements were pretty much the crux of Consagra's defense. Also, if you watch the segment, Malden says that she retracted her statements, although he doesn't say when.

Here is a thread I started awhile back with links to some articles about it:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...light=consagra

Some interesting stuff.

SP4CE INV4DERZ · 02-19-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

2. Michael Scott Martin ~ debated quite a bit here on the forum and I've always leaned towards innocence. I have huge problems with how Martin was treated during his only run in with the law previous to this incident, the credibility of the witness, and why Martin was even included in the line-up to begin with. I normally don't put a lot of stock into eyewitness accounts, but in this case there were no less than 5 people who verified Martin's alibi, several of whom hardly knew him and had nothing to gain either way.

Oh dear, I'm over arguing about this and certainly not looking to start anything but I'm left shaking my head in disbelief. It makes me personally happy to know this guy spent 20 years in jail.

DarkDante · 02-19-2010, 12:41 PM

Wiseguy - I think the best answer to you question is that UM did their homework in researching their "Final Appeal" cases and only profiled appealants that had a decent chance of being innocent to begin with. The only adage of "every man in prison claims his innocent" is pretty much true, but UM seemed to be able to select a lot of "Final Appeal" where the appealant's guilt or innocence truly seems to be a matter of some conjecture.

kadrmas15 - Lay off Doug Crow. He's not that bad of a guy, just takes his job very seriously and I'm not at all sure if Consagra was as innocent as UM made him out to be. As I've said many times I think he was involved in the crime but was not the sole killer. For the record, Crow is also responsible for putting Oba Chandler behind bars as well.

Michael Scott Martin - I still feel this guy is 100% innocent. I'm aware there is evidence against him as the UM segment detailed but I still can't wrap my head around the fact that MSM would be able to get five people (three of which barely knew him) to perjure themselves to protect him in a court of a law. I've shown this case a few times to my wife (who is a DA) and a couple of friends of ours who are also attorneys (both prosecution and defense) to get their thoughts and the common response I've gotten back is that MSM is either the slickest talker in the world to get all these people to come to his defense or he is actually as innocent as he claimed to be.

kadrmas15 · 02-20-2010, 01:13 AM

In terms of Doug Crow, I rip on him because he is a twerp. Yeah, he prosecuted Oba Chandler and that is great, but to be honest, a first year prosecutor probably could have got a conviction on Chandler. Doug Crow, is now the Chief Assistant State Attorney for Pinellas and Pasco Counties. My guess, is current State Attorney Bernie McCabe, will retire in 2012, he will have been State's Attorney for 20 years by then, and Doug Crow will run as his successor and win. Sad but a true reality. People love the sound bites and campaign gimmicks that people Crow will provide about how 'tough' they are even while in several instances being unethical.

I was not mad that Crow spoke against Glenn Consagra. What ticked me off though about Crow is how he sat there and tried to act all high and mighty, when he and his office were the ones that offered Consagra the plea deal to 2nd degree murder! Yet Crow tries to act like Mr. Big Shot, when he could have taken it to trial and got a conviction, well most likely, a conviction to first degree murder and Consagra would have got two consecutive sentences of 25 to life, or, possibly got the death penalty.

Now, one thing I always found interesting about that plea bargain is this: While Crow offered Consagra the plea bargain to 2nd degree murder, evidently, Crow did not make a sentencing recommendation. I think Consagra's lawyers did kind of a lousy job in this regard, in letting their client plead guilty to 2nd degree murder without a sentencing recommendation. At that time, in Florida, 2nd degree murder sentencing was VERY open ended. You could get anywhere from a couple years in prison to a life sentence WITH the possibility of parole after 7 years. Consagra was paroled in 1992, so that tells me that he was paroled the first time he was eligible but that was not unusual in Florida at that time, as in the 1980's and in the early to mid 90's, many lifers were paroled to ease prison overcrowding.

Interestingly, Florida had a very unusual sentencing statute for murder. In 1983, parole was abolished for 2nd degree murder (if the defendant was sentenced to life for that crime) and several other crimes, but yet, ironically not for first degree murder or capital sexual battery which if convicted, carried sentences of either 25 to life or the death penalty. Parole for those latter two crimes was not abolished until 1995. Like look at Thomas Drake, the crime he was convicted of, it occurred not long after the laws changed, hence why, while he got 30 years for attempted 2nd degree murder, he got LWOP for armed robbery.

I mean Crow, I do not think Crow is a bad guy, I do not know him, so I cannot say one way or the other whether he is or not. I do not doubt he is passionate about his job. I also do not doubt that getting a conviction is the first and foremost thing in his mind and not getting to the truth. I mean yeah Crow is a well known prosecutor and has won some pretty big cases. I am sure Crow has lost a murder case from time to time, but I bet he has one of the lower loss rates.

Crow though, like I said, if current State Attorney Bernie McCabe retires in 2012 as I think there is a better chance than not that he will, than I expect Doug Crow will be his successor. That is, if Crow is not appointed as a judge first by Governor Crist. Crist also appointed that dirt bag, David Rimmer up in Escambia County (Pensacola) to a judgeship recently. Rimmer was the Chief Assistant State Attorney in that area, and he was the one that was highly unethical in how he prosecuted Rick Chavis and the King brothers for the murder of their dad. Presenting two different theories to two different juries.

Anyway, back to the final appeals. In looking at a lot of these cases, the same common denominator seems to be present in most, if not all of them. Shoddy police work and tunnel vision by cops and prosecutors. I mean in Branion's case, you had the prosecutor, in essence admitting that he was 'not sure' how involved Branion was in his wife's death. That in and of itself is unethical as a prosecutor has to believe a defendant is guilty in order to prosecute him. Now, what would clinch it, in whether it was unethical or not, was how the prosecutor argued the case. That is not clear from the segment. Did he argue that Branion himself was the murderer? Or did he argue that Branion was the one that set the whole thing up? The prosecutor himself admitted he had his 'doubts' as to whether Branion himself personally, could have killed his wife. So if he argued to a jury that Branion had himself killed his wife while having doubts about whether Branion really did that, that is unethical. I mean, Branion might have had his wife killed, that part I do not know. But I am pretty sure he could not have himself personally killed his wife based on the timeline.

Michael Scott Martin, this guy got railroaded big time. I mean, seriously, first off, you had a biased police detective, who had worked Martin's previous case. So as a result, Martin was nothing but convicted felon scum to him. Everyone makes a big deal off of Doyle's eyewitness identification. However here is an interesting question. If Michael Scott Martin's photo had NOT been in the spread, would Doyle have picked a photo in the spread? I have always wondered this, about how really reliable eyewitness testimony is. I mean, I would imagine getting robbed at gun point would be the most scary and stressful experience of one's life. I mean, not to make fun of Doyle, but you could have basically told the guy Donald Duck was the one that robbed him and he would believe it. It seemed to me that the Garland Police were telling Doyle that they thought that Michael Scott Martin did it. This is a common police practice of trying to in essence dupe a witness into saying a guy did it when the witness might not truly be sure, but when you have the cops in essence telling you a guy did it, suddenly it becomes a bit more convincing.

Now, the biggest thing with this case, I mean to me, the prosecutor did not seem unethical. It did seem to bother him that he did not have a clincher, something that would make him 100 percent sure of things. But it seems his doubts did not really began to emerge about Martin's guilt until several years after the fact. It seemed the more he thought about it, the less convinced he was of his case. Plus, I think the jury was prejudiced against Martin because he was on probation for assault with a deadly weapon and assumed, oh, well he must be guilty if he had a prior record for that. That is why I have a bit of a problem with the 'prior bad acts' evidence, particularly in a circumstantial case like the robbery trial was. I mean a jury was out 15 minutes? I mean, that is kind of disturbing. They listen to all that evidence and they are out 15 minutes?

Space Invaderz why do you think Martin is guilty? Why? Because the cop said he was? You had 5 people, not just one person, 5 different people saying that at the exact moment that the gas station was being robbed in Garland, Michael Scott Martin was at a house in Fort Worth, now this was on the west side of Fort Worth if I remember right. Now, Michael Scott Martin, at the time of the robbery was according to these witnesses, at a house that was oh, 50 to 60 miles west of Garland at the exact moment this robbery was happening.

I mean, whoever robbed this gas station, okay, they walked up to the station. Meaning that someone either dropped them off there or by there or they walked there from their own residence. I mean, how else would they get there? Then, whoever stole Doyle's car, drove it to an apartment complex where yes Michael Scott Martin had once resided as I am sure hundreds of other people had too over the years, including some that probably had criminal records. So whoever stole Doyle's car, drove it to that apartment complex but then how did they escape from there? How did Martin get back over to Fort Worth? I mean it would take probably an hour,, maybe a little more to drive from Fort Worth to Garland, and another hour maybe a little more to drive back, depending on what roads you took and what time of day it was. So that would be roughly a 2 to 2 and a half hour round trip time. Yet no one other than these two sees Martin there? I mean, it just does not add up. I mean, the cop acted like he would blame every hold up on Michael Scott Martin and act like every robbery since Bonnie and Clyde was done by him. That cop was emotionally involved and had no business being involved in that case. As for, Doyle, I think Doyle was just mistaken. I think he truly believed Michael Scott Martin did it, but I mean, witnesses over the years have pointed at a guy and said 'that man raped me' and it turned out that it was not the right guy. Look at Tony Miller and the guy that was actual robber in his case, while not exactly looking alike, but in the heat of the moment, they look enough alike you could mistake one for the other.

wiseguy182 · 02-20-2010, 01:49 AM

you're right about that Kadrmas. I have so many problems with the lineup of photos.

1. Why is Michael Scott Martin, who has never robbed anyone in his life, being put in a stack of photographs with robbers? Shouldn't people who have been known to rob be the the ones with photograps in there? What was he even doing in the stack to begin with?

2. Doyle does NOT look at all of the photographs.

3. Doyle says "I think that's the guy" then a few seconds later says "I'm sure that's the guy." The biased police officer then pathetically tries to back up Doyle by saying something to the effect of "I wish all of my witnesses were as focused as Doyle." Eh. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for Doyle, but I have some issues with how he selected MSM.

kadrmas15 · 02-20-2010, 02:33 AM

Yes wiseguy, I mean, the photo spreads, I don't know, I mean in theory they are good, but it is something I wonder that if you took 6 random photos and stuck them in the spread, and left the suspect out, would the eyewitness still pick one of the photos? I think more often than not the answer is yes. Here is my opinion as to why that is this case. It is because, when a cop shows you a spread, well, the spread from what I understand is usually 6 photographs, the eyewitness instantly assumes that the suspect is one of the 6 people in the spread.

A fine example of this, is David Dowaliby. I mean in his instance, in the spread, the cops were aware that the eyewitness claimed that the suspect he saw had a large nose. So the cops blew up Dowaliby's picture so his photo was the largest photo in the spread, thus by default his nose was the largest photo in the spread and that is why the witness picked Dowaliby's picture out. He saw that Dowaliby had the largest nose so he picked him out for that reason, not because he saw Dowaliby. I have seen other instances of this, where particularly if a witness claimed that defendant was bigger as in there were features on their face that were bigger, or even just making the photo itself bigger, I have heard this has happened where cops have made the picture of the suspect they want bigger to make it stand out to the witness and make it more likely that the witness will pick it even though they are not even sure that is the person they saw!

Another common tactic by police is leading comments or leading questions. Like, while a cop could not tell a witness to pick a particular photo out, he can say things like, 'that is the guy...right?'I mean what is a witness supposed to say to that? When a cop says that, it implies that the cops 'know' that that is the suspect thus the eyewitness is more likely to pick the photo out that the cops are implying but not formally saying they want.

Also, as we saw in the Michael Scott Martin case, basically, Doyle was not really sure, he kind of pointed at Michael Scott Martin's picture but did not say 'that is him' then the cop leads him and says 'do you think that is the guy or do you KNOW that is guy?" and then implies that he cannot arrest Martin unless Doyle says he KNOWS it was Martin that he saw. A reasonable person would pick up on this enough to feel pressure to pick the guy and say that it is him, not that you think it is him or that it might be him but that it IS him.

DarkDante · 02-20-2010, 02:59 AM

There are a lot of issues that stick out about the Michael Scott Martin case in my opinion. In a case where one of the main sticking points is whether or not Michael Martin was someone who had predisposition for committing crimes, the incident at the supermarket is fascinating.

From watching the segment I believe the acts that Michael Martin committed during the supermarket incident were not the acts of a criminal but instead the acts of an intoxicated individual who was provoked by the supermarket employees.

I think everything points to the supermarket employees spotting an intoxicated individual in their store consuming food he hadn't yet paid for and then contacting the authorities more than likely to have him removed from the premises.

My question is whether or not prior to the incident at the checkout counter where Martin was informed that the authorities had been contacted, did the staff attempt to confront Martin over the unpaid items or ask him to leave the store. Interestingly enough, the way the UM segment portrays the supermarket incident is that Martin and his buddy were in fact grocery shopping on the evening in question and weren't just aimlessly wandering around the store in a drunken stupor, pulling items off the shelves and consuming them. Now they did consume a bag of potato chips and a polish sausage but they also had a basket full of other items that they were taking up to the counter to check out.

Martin is portrayed as having checked out all of his items at the counter before being confronted by the store manger that he still has two items (the potato chips and polish sausage) which he hasn't yet paid for. Martin first denies having any other items but once he is informed that the authorities have been contacted he throws down more money to cover the unpaid for items. The key thing to remember is that it seems that the authorities were contacted before Michael had even checked out the items in his basket.

At this stage the manager and several store employees try to stop Martin from leaving the store and that is when the incident resulting in the pointing of knives and shooting of pistols occurred.

My feeling is Martin's actions on that night were not that of a criminal but of an intoxicated individual who found himself in an adversarial situation and reacted irrationally as most intoxicated people would do. It didn't help matters that Martin had two weapons close at hand, but it's also unfair to condemn him for having those weapons either as I wouldn't be surprised if the knife was a pocketknife and quite frankly a lot of people carry guns in the the glove compartment of their car for protection. I don't think Michael should be condemned for having either item close at hand.

The thing about the supermarket incident that I feel is unfortunate is that it painted Martin as someone with a criminal predisposition. I'm not condoning Martin's actions on that night by any stretch of the imagination but I also see it at face value for what it is as I detailed in the previous paragraph. Therefore I personally have a hard time making the jump from

Michael Martin - Twenty six year old welder who on a night where he was intoxicated found himself in an adversarial situation where he made some poor choices in how he handled the situation

to

Michael Martin - Twenty six year old welder who held up a gas station, tied up the attendant and then fled in his car.

To me it's too much of a jump.

kadrmas15 · 02-20-2010, 03:11 AM

From what I gathered about that incident, it was not totally clear based on the segment, but it appears that the cops were called BEFORE Martin got to the check out line. It also appears that he was not aware the cops were called until after he got to the check out line. He tries to rectify the situation by paying for the food he had been snacking on and the employees refuse and tell him that the cops have been called and that he will be arrested and they try to prevent him from leaving and that is when he pulled the knife out. Then he and his friend left the store, went to Martin's car, and that is when he pulled out a pistol and fired it into the air.

Martin never called the incident 'a prank' like the cop falsely tried to portray. Martin was not minimizing what he did, he was just saying he did not know why he reacted like that. The problem in this situation and something that tends to get misunderstood, Michael Martin appeared to be heavily intoxicated on the evening in question and thus, while what he knew what he was doing was wrong, he was not purposely trying to hurt anyone. He was very drunk and irrational and wanted to get out of the situation. He tried to pay for the food he had consumed in the aisles and the employees refused because for some reason they wanted him arrested. Why they were so hell bent on that, I do not know. I used to work at a grocery store and if a guy was willing to pay for food he had been snacking on, while it is not encouraged that people snack on food before they pay for it, as long as they pay for it, it is generally considered to not be a criminal offense as that is technically not stealing as long as you pay for it.

Basically, these employees made the mistake of treating an irrational person like he was rational. Thus to him (Martin) their behavior came off as cocky, threatening and being drunk he was probably paranoid too and thought everyone was out to get to him, that kind of thing. All these employees did was escalate the situation by trying to prevent him from leaving and then top of that following him to his car.

I mean, I am not sure what it is with Texas, but I will say, it is not a place you want to commit a crime intentional or otherwise. For some reason, in that state, they just want to arrest everyone for everything. I mean, Martin was on probation, assault with a deadly weapon, gets 4 years probation, yet he is convicted of armed robbery and because he was on probation for another felony gets a life sentence? I mean, it does not make a whole lot of sense. In Minnesota, if Michael Scott Martin had done the same stuff here, we would not even be talking about him. He might have got prison, but it would not have been a life sentence. I am not even sure if he would have been convicted had this crime been in Minnesota, but who knows? I do know for sure though he would not have got a life sentence here, he would have got maybe a couple years in prison.

wiseguy182 · 02-20-2010, 03:18 AM

good points Dante and Kadrmas, I would add the following:

1. While it is practically unheard of in northern states, it is common in Texas for people to consume stuff while in a supermarket and pay for it and the check-out line. I have a cousin who worked at a supermarket and Texas and she said this was fairly common practice. So the employees were fired up over nothing.

2. I've worked nights at a hotel for many years. I deal with drunks on a fairly regular basis. I can only recall one occasion where I called the police on a drunk individual (he threatened me). You don't call the police because somebody in your place of business is drunk, they have to do something more to warrant calling the police.

3. The store employees never gave Martin an opportunity to pay for the eaten items. You can't steal something if you're still in the store.

4. I used to work at a supermarket as well and there was a diabetic lady who sometimes had to eat something right away if she had a diabetic reaction or something, and then paid for it later. I think that could have happened here, not out of the realm of possibility

5. with all that being said, the store employees seemed to have a personal bias against Martin, for whatever reason or were just getting worked up over nothing. I think this is evidenced by the fact that they not only chased him (which was a huge mistake), but went after him with brooms (which I must admit I laughed at).

DarkDante · 02-20-2010, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

I mean, I am not sure what it is with Texas, but I will say, it is not a place you want to commit a crime intentional or otherwise. For some reason, in that state, they just want to arrest everyone for everything. I mean, Martin was on probation, assault with a deadly weapon, gets 4 years probation, yet he is convicted of armed robbery and because he was on probation for another felony gets a life sentence? I mean, it does not make a whole lot of sense. In Minnesota, if Michael Scott Martin had done the same stuff here, we would not even be talking about him. He might have got prison, but it would not have been a life sentence. I am not even sure if he would have been convicted had this crime been in Minnesota, but who knows? I do know for sure though he would not have got a life sentence here, he would have got maybe a couple years in prison.

Well the bottom line for me is that if Martin is innocent (as I think he is) then this case to me is extremely scary. It is a cut and dry case of a miscarriage of justice where a man lost twenty years of his life due to a crime he didn't commit and a trial where he should have been found innocent.

I remember telling a friend once who was heading down to Texas on vacation not to consume any potato chips without paying for them, because they sentence people to life for doing that down there.

kadrmas15 · 02-20-2010, 04:28 AM

Well, yes, this is a scary case. It is not just limited to Texas, I mean there is crap this happens like this in every state to one degree or another. However the reason I point out Texas is that is where this situation went down. But yeah, I will say, no matter how minor, if you are going to do something illega, do not do it in Texas! They arrest you for EVERYTHING down there or so how it seems no matter how minor the case may be. Like there was a sting I was reading about where Houston P.D. was arresting people for public intoxication in a bar! What a shock. The charges were later thrown out on all the arrestees as it was revealed that while it was illegal to be drunk outside the bar, it was not illegal to be drunk in the bar.

However it depends on where you are at in Texas. I do know that under Texas law, it is a felony to serve or sell alcohol to a person that is obviously intoxicated. Now this law does not seem to be enforced much in terms of on the premises sales, as in bars, restaurants, etc. However gas stations and liquor stores and the like tend to be more on guard there because they are afraid the cops are doing a reverse sting on them, thus, if you are drunk in Texas, good luck at going to a gas station or a liquor store and trying to buy booze, I am sure people get away with it but more often than not you will be refused.

In Minnesota that is a misdemeanor so generally people will sell to you even if it is obvious you are drunk. In Minnesota, people get arrested for public intoxication too but not nearly as often. You have to be pretty belliegerant for them to arrest you here. Usually you will only get arrested for that if you are picking fights or threatening people and even then a lot of times, the cops will just tell you to go home and sleep it off. However in Texas, they arrest people for misdemeanor public intoxication all the time. I was reading, where one dude, was in a hotel, he was drunk and left his hotel room to get more ice, and someone saw him stumbling a bit and called the cops to have him arrested.

But what disturbs me about the Michael Scott Martin case, well, it just seems the jury did not even consider the possibility he was innocent. I mean they were out 15 minutes. Basically, in my view, once they found out he was a convicted felon, that was it. I mean from that instant, he was nothing but trash to them so they assumed he was guilty because he had been convicted of a weapons charge before. Basically they were convinced he should be in prison for life because he was a convicted felon, that is basically what it came down to here and it is sad and scary. I think had the prior bad act evidence not came in, the result might have been different. Of course, this case was hardly the first screw up from a Dallas County Jury. Just look at the oh, I don't know, 30 or so men proven innocent of rape alone in Dallas County in the last few years, all of whom were found guilty by a jury. Some serious problems in Dallas County, Texas that is for sure.

02-19-2010, 07:01 AM	#1
wiseguy182 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 11, 2006 Location: Wendy's salad bar Posts: 7,030	Were any of the final appealants actually guilty? It seems like somebody started a thread called "were any of the final appealants actually innocent" and I remember disagreeing with most of what that poster had to say about it, but I can't find that thread. I believe that most of the final appealants are actually innocent and decided to do my own version. I won't try to rehash too much, but rather give a brief synopsis on each one. 1. Glen Consagra ~ haven't watched this one in years and am fuzzy on the details, but I could go either way on this one. 2. Michael Scott Martin ~ debated quite a bit here on the forum and I've always leaned towards innocence. I have huge problems with how Martin was treated during his only run in with the law previous to this incident, the credibility of the witness, and why Martin was even included in the line-up to begin with. I normally don't put a lot of stock into eyewitness accounts, but in this case there were no less than 5 people who verified Martin's alibi, several of whom hardly knew him and had nothing to gain either way. 3. Dr. John Branion ~ even if he could have made it to his residence from his office in time (which is a huge if), he would have to have alot of chutzpah to allow his child to walk in on his mother's murder like that. 4. Johnny Lee Wilson ~ innocent. not really much else to say here. 5. Patty Stallings ~ ditto. 6. Larry Race ~ debated quite a bit here on the forum. I've leaned towards innocence. Jenny Lee was known to have been a faulty boat, so it's not like Larry's version of events is hard to believe. The prosecutions version of events is, on the other hand, hard to believe as they have him putting himself at death's door and having him do Herculean tasks if what they say is to be believed. 7. Dr. Jeffrey McDonald ~ highly debated and extremely controversial. I'll simply state that Helena Stoeckly seems to have an awful lot of inside information to not be involved in this somehow. She died under suspicious circumstances. 8. Port Chicago seaman. ~ innocent. no other comment. 9. Paul Ferrell. ~ ) I'll give you this one, he seemed pretty guilty to me. 10. Don Montecalvo ~ the neighbor (Susan?) knows too much to not be involved. 11. Bird Road rapist ~ at the very least, I think most everyone agreed if he was guilty, he at least didn't act alone. Which means he was (partially) imprisoned for crimes he didn't commit. 12. Rick McCue ~ Innocent. released from prison. 13. Rolando Cruz ~ he's innocent. the guy that confessed knew too much about the crime scene to not be involved. 14. John Purvis ~ Innocent. no other comment 15. Michael Lloyd Self ~ Innocent. only reason he became a suspect was due to some highly questionable tactics by two crooked cops. forced to confess by said cops who beaten, threatened, and intimidated him. Another man confessed and he knew too much about the case to not be involved. 16. Paul Freshour ~ at the very least, he couldn't have acted alone as the letters continued even after he was imprisoned. 17. Stuart Heaton ~ I've always leaned towards innocence. only reason he was suspected was because he was a carpenter with cuts on his hand, and happened to own a red truck. DNA evidence was degraded and highly questionable. Didn't seem to know victim. Another suspect who owned a red truck had a violent past, lived in the area and intimately knew Krystal Nabb 18. Tommy Ziegler ~ I could go either way on this one as there is mountains of evidence and it's hard to balance it all. However, there did seem to be strong evidence of someone else being responsible. 19. Frederick Young ~ been awhile since I've seen this one, but I think it's Cedrick, and not Frederick, who's responsible. 20. Darlie Routier ~ much debated and highly controversial. I've had a tough time buying that Darlie was guilty, she was almost killed herself. Suspicion of guilt based on silly string video is taken out of context and not very sound to begin with. I seem to recall the presence of DNA that didn't match anyone in the house. So IMO, practically all of them range from 50-50 to downright innocent. At the very least, I think all of them deserved new trials back in the day, particularly in the cases of Dr. John Branion (needed a transplant, denied because of his imprisonment) and Rolando Cruz (was set to be executed).
	Last edited by wiseguy182; 05-22-2010 at 06:21 AM.

02-19-2010, 09:50 AM	#3
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Hmm, yes, I think a lot of these segments speak for themselves. I will say, Consagra, I have gone back and forth on him. I will say, if he was involved he was NOT the only one involved. I guess the fact that little twerp Doug Crow was involved makes it easier for me to believe in Consagra's innocence. Kidding on that. As much as I dislike Crow, I believe the physical evidence, while very weak against Consagra, and the case in general was weak against Consagra, but I tend to lean towards that he was involved, just that he did not act alone. As for the opinions on most of the rest of the cases, I agree with wiseguy on those. Look up the threads and see my opinions.

02-19-2010, 09:57 AM	#4
Apostapler Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 06, 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 872	I mostly agree with your opinions wiseguy, except on these: Darlie Routier and Stuart Heaton. I think they are where they belong.

02-19-2010, 12:41 PM	#7
DarkDante Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 27, 2002 Posts: 1,569	Wiseguy - I think the best answer to you question is that UM did their homework in researching their "Final Appeal" cases and only profiled appealants that had a decent chance of being innocent to begin with. The only adage of "every man in prison claims his innocent" is pretty much true, but UM seemed to be able to select a lot of "Final Appeal" where the appealant's guilt or innocence truly seems to be a matter of some conjecture. kadrmas15 - Lay off Doug Crow. He's not that bad of a guy, just takes his job very seriously and I'm not at all sure if Consagra was as innocent as UM made him out to be. As I've said many times I think he was involved in the crime but was not the sole killer. For the record, Crow is also responsible for putting Oba Chandler behind bars as well. Michael Scott Martin - I still feel this guy is 100% innocent. I'm aware there is evidence against him as the UM segment detailed but I still can't wrap my head around the fact that MSM would be able to get five people (three of which barely knew him) to perjure themselves to protect him in a court of a law. I've shown this case a few times to my wife (who is a DA) and a couple of friends of ours who are also attorneys (both prosecution and defense) to get their thoughts and the common response I've gotten back is that MSM is either the slickest talker in the world to get all these people to come to his defense or he is actually as innocent as he claimed to be.

02-20-2010, 01:13 AM	#8
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	In terms of Doug Crow, I rip on him because he is a twerp. Yeah, he prosecuted Oba Chandler and that is great, but to be honest, a first year prosecutor probably could have got a conviction on Chandler. Doug Crow, is now the Chief Assistant State Attorney for Pinellas and Pasco Counties. My guess, is current State Attorney Bernie McCabe, will retire in 2012, he will have been State's Attorney for 20 years by then, and Doug Crow will run as his successor and win. Sad but a true reality. People love the sound bites and campaign gimmicks that people Crow will provide about how 'tough' they are even while in several instances being unethical. I was not mad that Crow spoke against Glenn Consagra. What ticked me off though about Crow is how he sat there and tried to act all high and mighty, when he and his office were the ones that offered Consagra the plea deal to 2nd degree murder! Yet Crow tries to act like Mr. Big Shot, when he could have taken it to trial and got a conviction, well most likely, a conviction to first degree murder and Consagra would have got two consecutive sentences of 25 to life, or, possibly got the death penalty. Now, one thing I always found interesting about that plea bargain is this: While Crow offered Consagra the plea bargain to 2nd degree murder, evidently, Crow did not make a sentencing recommendation. I think Consagra's lawyers did kind of a lousy job in this regard, in letting their client plead guilty to 2nd degree murder without a sentencing recommendation. At that time, in Florida, 2nd degree murder sentencing was VERY open ended. You could get anywhere from a couple years in prison to a life sentence WITH the possibility of parole after 7 years. Consagra was paroled in 1992, so that tells me that he was paroled the first time he was eligible but that was not unusual in Florida at that time, as in the 1980's and in the early to mid 90's, many lifers were paroled to ease prison overcrowding. Interestingly, Florida had a very unusual sentencing statute for murder. In 1983, parole was abolished for 2nd degree murder (if the defendant was sentenced to life for that crime) and several other crimes, but yet, ironically not for first degree murder or capital sexual battery which if convicted, carried sentences of either 25 to life or the death penalty. Parole for those latter two crimes was not abolished until 1995. Like look at Thomas Drake, the crime he was convicted of, it occurred not long after the laws changed, hence why, while he got 30 years for attempted 2nd degree murder, he got LWOP for armed robbery. I mean Crow, I do not think Crow is a bad guy, I do not know him, so I cannot say one way or the other whether he is or not. I do not doubt he is passionate about his job. I also do not doubt that getting a conviction is the first and foremost thing in his mind and not getting to the truth. I mean yeah Crow is a well known prosecutor and has won some pretty big cases. I am sure Crow has lost a murder case from time to time, but I bet he has one of the lower loss rates. Crow though, like I said, if current State Attorney Bernie McCabe retires in 2012 as I think there is a better chance than not that he will, than I expect Doug Crow will be his successor. That is, if Crow is not appointed as a judge first by Governor Crist. Crist also appointed that dirt bag, David Rimmer up in Escambia County (Pensacola) to a judgeship recently. Rimmer was the Chief Assistant State Attorney in that area, and he was the one that was highly unethical in how he prosecuted Rick Chavis and the King brothers for the murder of their dad. Presenting two different theories to two different juries. Anyway, back to the final appeals. In looking at a lot of these cases, the same common denominator seems to be present in most, if not all of them. Shoddy police work and tunnel vision by cops and prosecutors. I mean in Branion's case, you had the prosecutor, in essence admitting that he was 'not sure' how involved Branion was in his wife's death. That in and of itself is unethical as a prosecutor has to believe a defendant is guilty in order to prosecute him. Now, what would clinch it, in whether it was unethical or not, was how the prosecutor argued the case. That is not clear from the segment. Did he argue that Branion himself was the murderer? Or did he argue that Branion was the one that set the whole thing up? The prosecutor himself admitted he had his 'doubts' as to whether Branion himself personally, could have killed his wife. So if he argued to a jury that Branion had himself killed his wife while having doubts about whether Branion really did that, that is unethical. I mean, Branion might have had his wife killed, that part I do not know. But I am pretty sure he could not have himself personally killed his wife based on the timeline. Michael Scott Martin, this guy got railroaded big time. I mean, seriously, first off, you had a biased police detective, who had worked Martin's previous case. So as a result, Martin was nothing but convicted felon scum to him. Everyone makes a big deal off of Doyle's eyewitness identification. However here is an interesting question. If Michael Scott Martin's photo had NOT been in the spread, would Doyle have picked a photo in the spread? I have always wondered this, about how really reliable eyewitness testimony is. I mean, I would imagine getting robbed at gun point would be the most scary and stressful experience of one's life. I mean, not to make fun of Doyle, but you could have basically told the guy Donald Duck was the one that robbed him and he would believe it. It seemed to me that the Garland Police were telling Doyle that they thought that Michael Scott Martin did it. This is a common police practice of trying to in essence dupe a witness into saying a guy did it when the witness might not truly be sure, but when you have the cops in essence telling you a guy did it, suddenly it becomes a bit more convincing. Now, the biggest thing with this case, I mean to me, the prosecutor did not seem unethical. It did seem to bother him that he did not have a clincher, something that would make him 100 percent sure of things. But it seems his doubts did not really began to emerge about Martin's guilt until several years after the fact. It seemed the more he thought about it, the less convinced he was of his case. Plus, I think the jury was prejudiced against Martin because he was on probation for assault with a deadly weapon and assumed, oh, well he must be guilty if he had a prior record for that. That is why I have a bit of a problem with the 'prior bad acts' evidence, particularly in a circumstantial case like the robbery trial was. I mean a jury was out 15 minutes? I mean, that is kind of disturbing. They listen to all that evidence and they are out 15 minutes? Space Invaderz why do you think Martin is guilty? Why? Because the cop said he was? You had 5 people, not just one person, 5 different people saying that at the exact moment that the gas station was being robbed in Garland, Michael Scott Martin was at a house in Fort Worth, now this was on the west side of Fort Worth if I remember right. Now, Michael Scott Martin, at the time of the robbery was according to these witnesses, at a house that was oh, 50 to 60 miles west of Garland at the exact moment this robbery was happening. I mean, whoever robbed this gas station, okay, they walked up to the station. Meaning that someone either dropped them off there or by there or they walked there from their own residence. I mean, how else would they get there? Then, whoever stole Doyle's car, drove it to an apartment complex where yes Michael Scott Martin had once resided as I am sure hundreds of other people had too over the years, including some that probably had criminal records. So whoever stole Doyle's car, drove it to that apartment complex but then how did they escape from there? How did Martin get back over to Fort Worth? I mean it would take probably an hour,, maybe a little more to drive from Fort Worth to Garland, and another hour maybe a little more to drive back, depending on what roads you took and what time of day it was. So that would be roughly a 2 to 2 and a half hour round trip time. Yet no one other than these two sees Martin there? I mean, it just does not add up. I mean, the cop acted like he would blame every hold up on Michael Scott Martin and act like every robbery since Bonnie and Clyde was done by him. That cop was emotionally involved and had no business being involved in that case. As for, Doyle, I think Doyle was just mistaken. I think he truly believed Michael Scott Martin did it, but I mean, witnesses over the years have pointed at a guy and said 'that man raped me' and it turned out that it was not the right guy. Look at Tony Miller and the guy that was actual robber in his case, while not exactly looking alike, but in the heat of the moment, they look enough alike you could mistake one for the other.

02-20-2010, 01:49 AM	#9
wiseguy182 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 11, 2006 Location: Wendy's salad bar Posts: 7,030	you're right about that Kadrmas. I have so many problems with the lineup of photos. 1. Why is Michael Scott Martin, who has never robbed anyone in his life, being put in a stack of photographs with robbers? Shouldn't people who have been known to rob be the the ones with photograps in there? What was he even doing in the stack to begin with? 2. Doyle does NOT look at all of the photographs. 3. Doyle says "I think that's the guy" then a few seconds later says "I'm sure that's the guy." The biased police officer then pathetically tries to back up Doyle by saying something to the effect of "I wish all of my witnesses were as focused as Doyle." Eh. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for Doyle, but I have some issues with how he selected MSM.

02-20-2010, 02:33 AM	#10
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Yes wiseguy, I mean, the photo spreads, I don't know, I mean in theory they are good, but it is something I wonder that if you took 6 random photos and stuck them in the spread, and left the suspect out, would the eyewitness still pick one of the photos? I think more often than not the answer is yes. Here is my opinion as to why that is this case. It is because, when a cop shows you a spread, well, the spread from what I understand is usually 6 photographs, the eyewitness instantly assumes that the suspect is one of the 6 people in the spread. A fine example of this, is David Dowaliby. I mean in his instance, in the spread, the cops were aware that the eyewitness claimed that the suspect he saw had a large nose. So the cops blew up Dowaliby's picture so his photo was the largest photo in the spread, thus by default his nose was the largest photo in the spread and that is why the witness picked Dowaliby's picture out. He saw that Dowaliby had the largest nose so he picked him out for that reason, not because he saw Dowaliby. I have seen other instances of this, where particularly if a witness claimed that defendant was bigger as in there were features on their face that were bigger, or even just making the photo itself bigger, I have heard this has happened where cops have made the picture of the suspect they want bigger to make it stand out to the witness and make it more likely that the witness will pick it even though they are not even sure that is the person they saw! Another common tactic by police is leading comments or leading questions. Like, while a cop could not tell a witness to pick a particular photo out, he can say things like, 'that is the guy...right?'I mean what is a witness supposed to say to that? When a cop says that, it implies that the cops 'know' that that is the suspect thus the eyewitness is more likely to pick the photo out that the cops are implying but not formally saying they want. Also, as we saw in the Michael Scott Martin case, basically, Doyle was not really sure, he kind of pointed at Michael Scott Martin's picture but did not say 'that is him' then the cop leads him and says 'do you think that is the guy or do you KNOW that is guy?" and then implies that he cannot arrest Martin unless Doyle says he KNOWS it was Martin that he saw. A reasonable person would pick up on this enough to feel pressure to pick the guy and say that it is him, not that you think it is him or that it might be him but that it IS him.

02-20-2010, 02:59 AM	#11
DarkDante Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 27, 2002 Posts: 1,569	There are a lot of issues that stick out about the Michael Scott Martin case in my opinion. In a case where one of the main sticking points is whether or not Michael Martin was someone who had predisposition for committing crimes, the incident at the supermarket is fascinating. From watching the segment I believe the acts that Michael Martin committed during the supermarket incident were not the acts of a criminal but instead the acts of an intoxicated individual who was provoked by the supermarket employees. I think everything points to the supermarket employees spotting an intoxicated individual in their store consuming food he hadn't yet paid for and then contacting the authorities more than likely to have him removed from the premises. My question is whether or not prior to the incident at the checkout counter where Martin was informed that the authorities had been contacted, did the staff attempt to confront Martin over the unpaid items or ask him to leave the store. Interestingly enough, the way the UM segment portrays the supermarket incident is that Martin and his buddy were in fact grocery shopping on the evening in question and weren't just aimlessly wandering around the store in a drunken stupor, pulling items off the shelves and consuming them. Now they did consume a bag of potato chips and a polish sausage but they also had a basket full of other items that they were taking up to the counter to check out. Martin is portrayed as having checked out all of his items at the counter before being confronted by the store manger that he still has two items (the potato chips and polish sausage) which he hasn't yet paid for. Martin first denies having any other items but once he is informed that the authorities have been contacted he throws down more money to cover the unpaid for items. The key thing to remember is that it seems that the authorities were contacted before Michael had even checked out the items in his basket. At this stage the manager and several store employees try to stop Martin from leaving the store and that is when the incident resulting in the pointing of knives and shooting of pistols occurred. My feeling is Martin's actions on that night were not that of a criminal but of an intoxicated individual who found himself in an adversarial situation and reacted irrationally as most intoxicated people would do. It didn't help matters that Martin had two weapons close at hand, but it's also unfair to condemn him for having those weapons either as I wouldn't be surprised if the knife was a pocketknife and quite frankly a lot of people carry guns in the the glove compartment of their car for protection. I don't think Michael should be condemned for having either item close at hand. The thing about the supermarket incident that I feel is unfortunate is that it painted Martin as someone with a criminal predisposition. I'm not condoning Martin's actions on that night by any stretch of the imagination but I also see it at face value for what it is as I detailed in the previous paragraph. Therefore I personally have a hard time making the jump from Michael Martin - Twenty six year old welder who on a night where he was intoxicated found himself in an adversarial situation where he made some poor choices in how he handled the situation to Michael Martin - Twenty six year old welder who held up a gas station, tied up the attendant and then fled in his car. To me it's too much of a jump.

02-20-2010, 03:11 AM	#12
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	From what I gathered about that incident, it was not totally clear based on the segment, but it appears that the cops were called BEFORE Martin got to the check out line. It also appears that he was not aware the cops were called until after he got to the check out line. He tries to rectify the situation by paying for the food he had been snacking on and the employees refuse and tell him that the cops have been called and that he will be arrested and they try to prevent him from leaving and that is when he pulled the knife out. Then he and his friend left the store, went to Martin's car, and that is when he pulled out a pistol and fired it into the air. Martin never called the incident 'a prank' like the cop falsely tried to portray. Martin was not minimizing what he did, he was just saying he did not know why he reacted like that. The problem in this situation and something that tends to get misunderstood, Michael Martin appeared to be heavily intoxicated on the evening in question and thus, while what he knew what he was doing was wrong, he was not purposely trying to hurt anyone. He was very drunk and irrational and wanted to get out of the situation. He tried to pay for the food he had consumed in the aisles and the employees refused because for some reason they wanted him arrested. Why they were so hell bent on that, I do not know. I used to work at a grocery store and if a guy was willing to pay for food he had been snacking on, while it is not encouraged that people snack on food before they pay for it, as long as they pay for it, it is generally considered to not be a criminal offense as that is technically not stealing as long as you pay for it. Basically, these employees made the mistake of treating an irrational person like he was rational. Thus to him (Martin) their behavior came off as cocky, threatening and being drunk he was probably paranoid too and thought everyone was out to get to him, that kind of thing. All these employees did was escalate the situation by trying to prevent him from leaving and then top of that following him to his car. I mean, I am not sure what it is with Texas, but I will say, it is not a place you want to commit a crime intentional or otherwise. For some reason, in that state, they just want to arrest everyone for everything. I mean, Martin was on probation, assault with a deadly weapon, gets 4 years probation, yet he is convicted of armed robbery and because he was on probation for another felony gets a life sentence? I mean, it does not make a whole lot of sense. In Minnesota, if Michael Scott Martin had done the same stuff here, we would not even be talking about him. He might have got prison, but it would not have been a life sentence. I am not even sure if he would have been convicted had this crime been in Minnesota, but who knows? I do know for sure though he would not have got a life sentence here, he would have got maybe a couple years in prison.

02-20-2010, 03:18 AM	#13
wiseguy182 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 11, 2006 Location: Wendy's salad bar Posts: 7,030	good points Dante and Kadrmas, I would add the following: 1. While it is practically unheard of in northern states, it is common in Texas for people to consume stuff while in a supermarket and pay for it and the check-out line. I have a cousin who worked at a supermarket and Texas and she said this was fairly common practice. So the employees were fired up over nothing. 2. I've worked nights at a hotel for many years. I deal with drunks on a fairly regular basis. I can only recall one occasion where I called the police on a drunk individual (he threatened me). You don't call the police because somebody in your place of business is drunk, they have to do something more to warrant calling the police. 3. The store employees never gave Martin an opportunity to pay for the eaten items. You can't steal something if you're still in the store. 4. I used to work at a supermarket as well and there was a diabetic lady who sometimes had to eat something right away if she had a diabetic reaction or something, and then paid for it later. I think that could have happened here, not out of the realm of possibility 5. with all that being said, the store employees seemed to have a personal bias against Martin, for whatever reason or were just getting worked up over nothing. I think this is evidenced by the fact that they not only chased him (which was a huge mistake), but went after him with brooms (which I must admit I laughed at).

02-20-2010, 04:28 AM	#15
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Well, yes, this is a scary case. It is not just limited to Texas, I mean there is crap this happens like this in every state to one degree or another. However the reason I point out Texas is that is where this situation went down. But yeah, I will say, no matter how minor, if you are going to do something illega, do not do it in Texas! They arrest you for EVERYTHING down there or so how it seems no matter how minor the case may be. Like there was a sting I was reading about where Houston P.D. was arresting people for public intoxication in a bar! What a shock. The charges were later thrown out on all the arrestees as it was revealed that while it was illegal to be drunk outside the bar, it was not illegal to be drunk in the bar. However it depends on where you are at in Texas. I do know that under Texas law, it is a felony to serve or sell alcohol to a person that is obviously intoxicated. Now this law does not seem to be enforced much in terms of on the premises sales, as in bars, restaurants, etc. However gas stations and liquor stores and the like tend to be more on guard there because they are afraid the cops are doing a reverse sting on them, thus, if you are drunk in Texas, good luck at going to a gas station or a liquor store and trying to buy booze, I am sure people get away with it but more often than not you will be refused. In Minnesota that is a misdemeanor so generally people will sell to you even if it is obvious you are drunk. In Minnesota, people get arrested for public intoxication too but not nearly as often. You have to be pretty belliegerant for them to arrest you here. Usually you will only get arrested for that if you are picking fights or threatening people and even then a lot of times, the cops will just tell you to go home and sleep it off. However in Texas, they arrest people for misdemeanor public intoxication all the time. I was reading, where one dude, was in a hotel, he was drunk and left his hotel room to get more ice, and someone saw him stumbling a bit and called the cops to have him arrested. But what disturbs me about the Michael Scott Martin case, well, it just seems the jury did not even consider the possibility he was innocent. I mean they were out 15 minutes. Basically, in my view, once they found out he was a convicted felon, that was it. I mean from that instant, he was nothing but trash to them so they assumed he was guilty because he had been convicted of a weapons charge before. Basically they were convinced he should be in prison for life because he was a convicted felon, that is basically what it came down to here and it is sad and scary. I think had the prior bad act evidence not came in, the result might have been different. Of course, this case was hardly the first screw up from a Dallas County Jury. Just look at the oh, I don't know, 30 or so men proven innocent of rape alone in Dallas County in the last few years, all of whom were found guilty by a jury. Some serious problems in Dallas County, Texas that is for sure.