Molly wants guilty verdict thrown out
Martens seeking retrial claiming ‘jury misconduct’
CONVICTED murderers Tom and Molly Martens have applied to have their guilty verdict thrown out on the grounds of alleged juror misconduct.
Retired FBI agent Tom and his daughter were both last week convicted of seconddegree murder after bludgeoning Molly’s Limerick-born husband Jason Corbett to death using a baseball bat and a concrete paving brick.
They were both sentenced to between 20 and 25 years in prison – with no opportunity for parole until 2037 – for the murder in North Carolina, US.
Now, one week after sentencing, lawyers for the Martens have submitted a motion for a re-trial to the Davidson County Superior Court claiming that members of the jury acted inappropriately.
In the 42-page document, the defendants – who maintain they acted in self-defence – claim that social media posts and post-trial interviews by members of the jury prove that they wrongfully engaged in private discussions about the trial prior to starting their deliberations.
They claim jury foreman Tom Aamland admitted on social media and in an interview that jurors held such discussions.
The document states that after the verdict, ‘the jury foreman voluntarily participated in an impromptu press conference outside the courtroom’.
They quote him as saying: ‘We felt which way we were going to go, I believe individually, before the closing arguments.
‘We didn’t discuss a verdict but in having private conversations, everybody – we could read that everybody was going in the same direction, just the level of severity. ‘Nobody voted not guilty’. The defence claims the juror’s use of the pronoun ‘we’ and his referral to ‘private conversations’ indicates that the jury violated the court’s repeated instructions not to discuss the case with anyone outside of the court room.
The ‘motion for appropriate relief’ further claims that a witness observed the jury foreman and another juror meeting privately for ten to 15 minutes during deliberations.
The defence says this ‘raises serious concerns, necessitating an evidentiary hearing regarding the substance of that conversation and all other “private conversations” that occurred.’
The documents, lodged on Wednesday, also allege one of the jurors misled the court on her ability to continue in the trial.
When photos of Mr Corbett’s battered skull were shown in the early stages of the trial, juror Nancy Perez became ill and was excused from the courtroom.
The appeal papers state: ‘Upon the return of juror Perez to the courtroom, defence counsel moved to remove Ms Perez for cause in favour of an alternative juror. Upon her voir dire examination, juror Perez indicated to the court that she had become sick due to her failure to eat breakfast that morning and would have no difficulty continuing her service.’
The defence now claims the juror contradicted this assertion in a post-trial interview.
The interviewer asked: ‘Those images of Jason Corbett’s skull were so graphic, Nancy, you actually threw up?’
Ms Perez is said to have responded: ‘Yes ma’am. I don’t think there’s anything or any experience in life that can prepare you to look at those pictures.’
Attorneys for the Martens also claim that Ms Perez had a bias against Mr Martens due to his service in the FBI despite denying so when she was specifically asked by the state if the accused man’s service in the FBI would make it difficult for her to be impartial.
They also allege jurors formed opinions of Ms Martens’s character and mental state outside of evidence presented at the trial.
They claim members of the jury determined Ms Martens’s role was of the ‘aggressor’ despite this not being a trial theory.
‘Juror had a bias against Tom’