One of the first UMs I saw....

[Matt Brock]

Probably aired around 1988 or so. Was about a man who had been convicted of various petty crimes in the past. Was then tried for armed robbery of a gas station. Was ID'd by the owner. However, several people said it couldn't have been him because he was 100s of miles away at the time of the robbery. Was convicted and received a stiff sentence mainly because of his past criminal acts This episode was tagged under one of the "final appeal" shows.

[Steve W.]

I believe you are thinking of a man named Michael Scott Martin.

[Matt Brock]

That's him. Is he still in jail?

[Matt Brock]

Does anyone know if he was ever paroled or granted a new trial?

[Matt Brock]

A little more research showed he was paroled in 1999. He maintains his innocence. IMO, this is a clear case of injustice.

[Thiussat]

Originally Posted by Matt Brock

A little more research showed he was paroled in 1999. He maintains his innocence. IMO, this is a clear case of injustice.

This is one of the few "Final appeals" where I think the guy is innocent, or at the very least should not have been convicted based on the evidence. You have 5 eye-witnesses for the defense vs. 2 for the prosecution. I think the defense eye-witnesses are more reliable because they knew the guy personally (i.e. they are much less likely to be mistaken). I am really kind of amazed that the DA even prosecuted the case with such flimsy evidence in the first place. By his own admission, he only got the conviction because he convinced the judge to let in the prejudicial evidence of the past offense. And the DA himself even said in the segment he is not sure Martin is guilty. It's a scary thought to know that any of us could have that kind of DA representing us.

[Matt Brock]

It's scary to think I can be sitting in my house (with people present) and someone 70 miles away say I robbed a store and then get convicted of it. Remember the DA admitted there was NO physical evidence whatsoever. The only evidence he had was the clerk's testimony and the fact of the prior grocery store incident. Unfortantely, I believe his prior action convicted him in the second case even though there was clearly no evidence he did it. Five witnesses placed him elsewhere. Amazing.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Thiussat

This is one of the few "Final appeals" where I think the guy is innocent, or at the very least should not have been convicted based on the evidence. You have 5 eye-witnesses for the defense vs. 2 for the prosecution. I think the defense eye-witnesses are more reliable because they knew the guy personally (i.e. they are much less likely to be mistaken). I am really kind of amazed that the DA even prosecuted the case with such flimsy evidence in the first place. By his own admission, he only got the conviction because he convinced the judge to let in the prejudicial evidence of the past offense. And the DA himself even said in the segment he is not sure Martin is guilty. It's a scary thought to know that any of us could have that kind of DA representing us.

I remember the district attorney in that case. His name was Brad Lollar. In Lollar's defense, he admitted on UM that at the time he tried the case in the seventies, he thought MSM was guilty. However, he had doubts as the years went on.

I think Lollar was one of the better DAs interviewed in a FA segment because he actually admitted, in so many words, that it was possible that they may have been wrong and sent an innocent man to prison.

Personally, I would rather have a DA like Lollar prosecuting me. Contrast him to some of the other DAs who made UM appearances over the years who were so obstinate that they could never admit they had possibly made a mistake and wrongfully convicted anyone, even in the face of credible exculpatory evidence.

The most egregious example, in my opinion, was the prosecutor in the John Branion case. The man freely admitted that the prosecution theory revolved around Branion shooting his wife. However, the prosecutor then says that he never was sure Branion did the shooting, yet he "probably had something to do with it".

[DarkDante]

Originally Posted by Matt Brock

It's scary to think I can be sitting in my house (with people present) and someone 70 miles away say I robbed a store and then get convicted of it. Remember the DA admitted there was NO physical evidence whatsoever. The only evidence he had was the clerk's testimony and the fact of the prior grocery store incident. Unfortantely, I believe his prior action convicted him in the second case even though there was clearly no evidence he did it. Five witnesses placed him elsewhere. Amazing.

I should say for the record that I've always believed that Michael Scott Martin is innocent and was the victim of a great miscarriage of justice.

That being said, the clerk's (Doyle Lovelady) testimony and Martin's priors weren't the only evidence that the prosecution had against Martin. After the gas station was held up, the robber fled in Doyle's car. The car was later located at an apartment complex where Martin had lived only a month before. In addition during the time when Martin claims he was at home in Ft. Worth, Dennis Wheatley the detective who was familiar with Martin from the supermarket offense claims he saw Martin driving past him on his motorcycle in the vicinity of where the crime was committed.

Now there are two ways of looking at that: First there is the fact that having already been familiar with Martin, Wheatley would've been able to identify him at a glance better than someone who wasn't familiar with him. The other thing to consider however is that Martin's appearance fell so much in line with most bikers of that period that Wheatley could have just spotted someone who resembled Martin.

Finally it should be noted that all of Martin's witnesses that were featured in the UM segment were given polygraph tests after coming forward in Martin's defense and not one of them passed.

Just some things to consider.

[Matt Brock]

Odd that evidence of an unrelated case was allowed in the gas station hold up trial. Without that, he is found innocent. To many, if you did it one time you automatically are guilty if accused in the future. It's just the way most people are, similar to most people that you have to proved innocent rather than guilty.

[Thiussat]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

That being said, the clerk's (Doyle Lovelady) testimony and Martin's priors weren't the only evidence that the prosecution had against Martin. After the gas station was held up, the robber fled in Doyle's car. The car was later located at an apartment complex where Martin had lived only a month before.

That's true and it certainly didn't help Martin's defense. But at the same time, why would Martin flee to a place that he no longer lived? I would assume he no longer had access to that apartment. Maybe he had friends there? The segment didn't say.

In addition during the time when Martin claims he was at home in Ft. Worth, Dennis Wheatley the detective who was familiar with Martin from the supermarket offense claims he saw Martin driving past him on his motorcycle in the vicinity of where the crime was committed.

Actually Wheatley was the one on the motorcycle. The man who he claimed was Martin was in a blue camaro.

Now there are two ways of looking at that: First there is the fact that having already been familiar with Martin, Wheatley would've been able to identify him at a glance better than someone who wasn't familiar with him.

True, but there are 3 people also very familiar with Martin who say he was 70 miles away for the whole day, and 2 other people who knew of him (but weren't friends) who say the same thing. Even if we discount the 3 people whom were his friends, there's still those 2 others.

The other thing to consider however is that Martin's appearance fell so much in line with most bikers of that period that Wheatley could have just spotted someone who resembled Martin.

Yeah, but Martin was in a Camaro. But, I still concede your point. Car or bike, it's very plausible Wheatley simply mistook the man for Martin.

One other thing I caught in the segment: Detective Wheatley asked to be put on the case. This makes me wonder if he didn't already have his mind made up it was Martin before he knew any of the facts. And isn't it also coincidental how it was this same detective who happened to identify Martin on the day of the robbery? It seems to me like either he wanted to be on the case because since he saw Martin, it automatically meant Martin must have done it *or* he didn't see Martin at all and was making it up because he had some personal vendetta. Either way, it is inappropriate police work.

Another thing: if Martin was in a Camaro that day, why would he steal the clerk's car to get away? That makes no sense to me. Why not just park the Camaro somewhere down the road and walk to it or have an accomplice pick him up?

Finally it should be noted that all of Martin's witnesses that were featured in the UM segment were given polygraph tests after coming forward in Martin's defense and not one of them passed.

Where did you hear this? I didn't see it on the segment. And if they were lying, why even volunteer to take a poly? And why would all 5 of these people cover for the guy? One or two, maybe, but 5? BTW, I don't put much stock in polygraphs, they are notoriously unreliable.

[DarkDante]

^ Awhile back I think Justin found some information on the case that stated all of Martin's witnesses failed polygraph tests. I don't put too much stock in polygraphs either but there you have it either way.