Coalizione Italiana Contro la Pena di Morte

italiano

 

Gerald Marshall’s case

 

 

 Gerald Marhall
# 999489

Polunsky Unit D/R
3872 F.M. 350 South
Livingston, TX 77351
USA



Gerald Marshall was born in 1982, July. He has been incarcerated on Texas death row since December, 8th, 2004. He was charged with capital murder during a robbery where Christopher Martin Dean, a man who was working in a Whataburger restaurant, was killed on May, 18, 2003. According to the charges, there were three co-defendants with Gerald: Gregory O'Neil Love, Ronald Worthy and Kenny Earl Calliham.

Gerald Marshall has always maintained his innocence, saying that he was judged and wrongly sentenced to death only because of the statements made by those who had an interest in saying he was guilty: his co-defendants. As most of poor people sentenced to death, Gerald didn't have a good defence. His lawyers very seldom wrote to him or visited him, so his trial wasn't fair at all.

Now Gerald is trying on his own to figure out what has happened during his trial and, above all, what can be done now to prove his innocence. He does hope he will get a new trial. Unfortunately Gerald doesn't know much about laws, and he has nobody who can help him financially. He has been separated from his parents at the age of three, because of their drug-addiction; after that he grew up in foster homes, where he also suffered mental and physical abuses (something which has been used against him during the trial).

According to Gerald, a man called Dennis Meyer knows the truth and he's the only one that could help him. Gerald Marshall is trying to find someone that can help him find this man in order to have his innocence finally proven.

If you would like to do something for Gerald or have some information which could be useful, also legal information, please contact:

Anna Langiano
e-mail: benvenutoraggiodisole@virgilio.it

(Anna is in touch with Gerald's present lawyer)
 


The facts, according to Gerald:


While I was in jail I would have never thought that I would end up on death row for a crime I did not commit. I was indicted on July, 3, 2003 of capital murder. At this time I was in the Harris County Jail. I was indicted of capital murder with three other people. I have never been to jail for a long amount of time. I have however been to jail for a couple of offenses: one possession of marijuana, and the other for traffic tickets.

The way this all came about is all but right. I am ashamed that I would ever been involved in some thing like that. I have been also feeling sorrow for the family of the victim in this case. I' m telling you this because I have never been involved in any kind of violent crimes. All of my life I have been against the odds, mostly I have been a foster home all my life. Then after a year and a half I was out of the home that I was staying in. To find my sister almost homeless, in need of her rent being paid. While I was riding one night I ran into one of the co-defendants on this trial. He was willing to cooperate with what was supposed to be a person giving a person something. I was not the person who was, or went to get the money. This was my first time ever being involved a major case like this.

Before the trial I was into the Harris County Jail thinking that I would be in jail for aggravated robbery, because I did not kill anyone or wanted anyone to get hurt. So while I was in jail my two other co-defendants were put in the same cell. While they were in the same cell they begin to try and put everything on me, they started to say that I shot this man and things like that. Basically what they were doing were looking out for each other.

Well, about the months being in jail I asked to go on trial. The reason I did this is because I knew that I did not kill anyone, and the most I could get charged with is aggravated robbery. Well at trial things did not go like that.

The states case: the state did not have a lot f key witnesses. Their main two witnesses were Wilbert Marsh and Tony Ketchum. Plus they had my co-defendant Kenny Calliham, also a person who said that I admitted to the crime to him. At trial everything started to change. Supposedly Wilbert Marsh saw me inside the place. Also Kenny said that I shot some on. The most accurate people testifying were two witnesses that I had my lawyer call. Wilbert Marsh said he saw me, he also pointed to me in trial. The only thing that I ca say about the states case was that they did a good job of lying and cheating.

My innocence: I want to start by elaborating a little more about what happened at trial. The State called Tony Ketchum as their first main witness. This was good I was thinking, because I know that I didn't shoot anybody, plus my lawyer gave me some of the statements of his. In the statement he stated that he saw a black male half way through the drive through with a gun in his left hand. This s what he said in his statement, so I brought this to my lawyer’s attention. He asks me was my co-defendant left handed and naturally he was, so I' m believing that this will help prove my innocence. While Tony was testifying he changed everything upon request from the prosecutor, I' m sure of it. So one key element to prove my innocence is gone. He also changed his story to the fullest extent to make it seem like the police officer messed up in taking his statement.

The most critical witness I believe was Wilbert Marsh. This is because he got a look at the person who went inside. Following the crime he was asked to look at two photo line ups (photos with suspects). While I was the only one that was in this line up of all my co-defendants and was not picked out. I was the only person who was in the line up! By me not being in the line up, I thought that would come to trial just like he picked the person out. But it did not happen like that. The first time the prosecutor asked him about who he picked out. He immediately said that he picked me. It was obvious that the prosecutor told him to say that he picked the wrong one, but because his understanding wasn't that good he said that he picked me when he didn't. The person was almost the same skin tone as the shooter in this case, which is darker. He also looked just like the shooter. That was one of the things my lawyer used as a defense that the person who Mr Marsh picked out looked just like my co-defendant. He is not all, when my lawyer called him on cross he pointed at me in the court room, saying that I was the person who he saw. Me, the same person who was in the line up, who he did not pick.

Then the state had Kenny testify that I said that I shot him. This is all after Kenny gave three statements. The first statement he said that he did not know who shot him, the second statement he said the same thing but he started to give more details but still not knowing what went on this time when he gives the same statement he has been in the same cell with the shooter. Now he's blaming everything on me. I will tell you this also the state convicted me on circumstancial evidence. So one of the main things that they leaned on heavily was the color of he gun that the two witnesses said that they saw. Now when Kenny gave each of his statement he stated that I had the dark colored gun! By him saying this should have known that I was innocent, because the only two witnesses said that the man had a silver gun.

This is all creating my innocence clearly, they should have known. And they did, but ask yourself if I have one person who is not willing to testify on anyone, but I have two other witnesses who are willing to testify who would you take to trial. This is what my own lawyer said to me. So what he was really telling me because it was two against one they took me to trial. Well Kenny testify at my trial, on the stand he changed his whole story, stating that I had a silver gun, not what he said in his three statements. He stated a lot of more things pointing this wrongful conviction to me. Now the other person that I mentioned said that I told him that I shot someone, this was a lie. Me and him were in the same holding cell for about ten minutes and at the time we were both talking to our lawyers about our respective cases I heard about his case as he heard about mine. Plus he was a habitual criminal (been convicted of three or more felonies) so for beating up a woman he was facing twenty years to life in jail. That' s his motive, because I never held a conversation past ten minutes with him in that cell.

The next thing was shocking to me at trial as it is even to this day. While I was sitting in trial, my lawyer discovered that while my two co-defendants were in the same cell setting me up, they were using the help of a man named Dennis Meyer. I have never talked to this man about this I have seen him while I was in the County Jail. Well the prosecutors offered Dennis some time to testify against my two co-defendants because he knew everything that was going on with my trial with the shooter telling Kenny what to say. At trial my lawyer asked the prosecutor if they had any evidence that could be used to impeach the testimony of Kenny they said no. Well actually Dennis had given a statement to the police saying that they were setting me up. The prosecutor had this information but they denied it. Which by it self denied me a fair trial. After all this took place Dennis Meyer came and testified, he said that Kenny was lying about his involvement in the case. The most important thing he said was that I was not guilty of being the shooter, instead he said that I was guilty as a party to the crime. That in Texas is all you need to be convicted. But you have to participate and abet the crime. That being said he knows that I' m innocent because he helped my co-defendants write statements against me. Still to this day my lawyer has never heard the statement that Dennis gave. Now if I was convicted of capital murder as a party to the crime more than likely I would have been convicted. But I doubt if I would have been given the death penalty. It's like if me and you were in the same car and you happened to be drinking in Texas instead of just taking you to jail they would take both of us to jail. Then I would be charged as a party t the crime. But I would not be guilty of the major crime what would be drinking. Or in my case I should not be on death row because I did not shoot anyone.

After all of thus happened at my trial they began the closing statement and the prosecutor said that either me or my co-defendant killed this man. She's saying that after she had all these people lying at trial that I shot this man she still did not know. Then she stated that I was in the place so I had a chance to shot him. That's where Dennis Meyerwill come in to prove my innocence. At trial he stated that the shooter said that he went in the place. That right there is more than enough evidence to show that I did not kill this man.

All of this you have read is from my account at trial. I haven't gotten my transcript yet. Nor have I gone into a deep, elaborate telling of all this went about, in hopes that I receive a new trial.

The most important person I believe to prove my innocence is Dennis Meyer! This is a man who knows more about my case than I knew, I never found out how all this about. My co-defendant never told me. I'm in desperate need of any legal person who can try and find Dennis Meyer to find out what is really on the tape. If it doesn't happen I may lose my life for a crime I did not commit.

I want to thank you for your time and hope that you are interested in finding out more about the injustices of my case and my life.

Please help me prove my innocence. Please help me save my life.
If you ant to know more, please feel free to write to me:

Gerald Marhall
# 999489
Polunsky Unit D/R
3872 F.M. 350 South
Livingston, TX 77351
USA

 

The following is a brief overview offered by Gerald’s present lawyer, Wayne T. Hill, who is working on his appeal:

The trial court jury found Mr Marshall guilty of murder of a fast food restaurant worker during the course of a robbery. I will provide a very brief overview of the case. The state's evidence at trial consisted of the testimony of the other employees present on the night of the killing as well as Mr Marshall's co-defendant. Police officers testified about statements made by Mr Marshall which implicated him in the robbery. A former girlfriend also testified concerning an altercation she had with Mr Marshall after the killing took place. The State of Texas also called a witness who had been in jail with Mr Marshall and stated that Marshall explained the situation to him. Other evidence was introduced at trial in support of the State's theory of how this crime was committed.

There were several issues presented on appeal, including, constitutional challenges; a challenge to the factual sufficienty of the evidence to support Mr Marshall's conviction; challenges to the admissibility of Mr Marshall's statements made to police officials (no valid waver of his right to remain silent and made no response to a false promise); a challenge to the State's use of unrelated criminal accusations during trial; a challenge to the denial of Mr Marshall's right to confront witness against him; a challenge to the admissibility of "hearsay" testimony indicating that Mr Marshall was the shooter in the case; a challenge to the trial court's refusal to admit evidence favorable to the defense; challenges to the trial court's refusal to grant defense motions for mistrial; a challenge to the trial court's refusal to grant Mr Marshall a new trial.

Mr Marshall's brief was filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, Texas. The State's response brief is due on February 17, 2006

Mr Marshall is also being represented by Mr Dick Wheelan on a writ of habeas corpus.

 

 
 

[Home]

[Iscrizione mailing list]

[Blog]

[Webzine]