A decision on whether to move the trial of Molly Martens Corbett and her father, Thomas Martens, from their home county will be made late next week, the presiding judge said after hearing arguments in Forsyth County Courthouse, North Carolina.
Arguments were heard Friday by defence attorneys that would move their second-degree murder trial from Davidson County to neighbouring Forsyth County. The trial relates to the killing of Limerick man Jason Corbett, the husband of Ms Martens, at his home in 2015.
The pair were found guilty of second-degree murder at a trial in 2017 which was subsequently overturned by the North Carolina Court of Appeal.
The Irishman was beaten to death at his home with a baseball bat and a paving slab in an attack his family say was linked to custody of their two children.
Inside the courthouse on Friday, Judge David Hall heard arguments from Douglas Kingsbery, Jay Vannoy and Jones Byrd, attorneys representing Molly Corbett and Thomas Martens, as well as from Assistant District Attorney Alan Martin for the prosecution. The change of venue motion arose, the defence contends, from their desire to see Ms Corbett and Mr Martens be presented with a fair trial, as they pointed out was their constitutional right.
They argue the two cannot receive a fair retrial in the death of Molly Corbett’s husband, Jason Corbett, in the county the couple lived because a faction of the county’s residents have indicated their allegiance lies with Jason Corbett’s family. Accounts on social media have flooded in by supporters in Ireland and the US of the deceased man’s family. Publicity from the case prompted Judge Hall to issue a gag order on the participants in the case, lest it taint the jury pool.
The defence argues that it’s too late.
“This is not just about publicity,” Mr Vannoy said. “We have publicity in every high profile case.”
The attorney pointed out that the crux of his argument hinges on the news media, print and entertainment media, as well as word-of-mouth communication and social media. Mr Vannoy contended that most reports have been factual and that news media outlets play a proper, important role in distributing information.
His issue is with what he calls a social media campaign which he suggested individuals in Ireland began. Mr Vannoy called out what he referred to as attempts to paint Jason Corbett as a fine gentleman and Molly Corbett as an evil murderer.
“The problem with that, your honour, is that it’s false,” Mr Vannoy said, adding that jurors in the first case admitted to forming opinions outside the scope of what was presented in court.
Reading from snippets of posts attributed to Davidson County residents, Mr Vannoy said those living in the county have formed an “us versus them” mentality. They followed, he said, the lead of one juror from the first trial, Nancy Perez, who said on ABC’s 20/20 that Mr Martens had attempted to outwit Davidson County, but that Davidson County outwitted him.
Such comments from residents included remarks that invited violence, suggesting the authorities “hang them”.
After reading the selections of social media posts, Mr Vannoy told Judge Hall that residents forecast what they were going to do, claiming that an invitation to “get the locals out” was intended to prompt them to hold signs and picket outside Davidson County Courthouse. Other local residents commented that anyone who would think the father and daughter were innocent should “join them behind bars.”
Mr Martin, for the prosecution, set out to pick apart a survey conducted at the behest of the defence, which polled Forsyth County residents. According to Jones Byrd, an attorney for Mr Martens, 83.3 per cent of people interviewed said they had no knowledge of the case. A total of 216 individuals replied to the survey request, out of 1,000 that were sent out.
Mr Martin said the defence team had “cherry picked” a small number of residents to paint Davidson County with a broad brush. In a county of more than 170,000 people, he said he believed the representation of a few who voiced their opinions on social media did not represent the whole of the communities.
Having heard the entirety of arguments from counsel for the defence, as well as arguments by the prosecution, Judge Hall said he would carefully consider the evidence presented over the next few days. A decision, he offered, would come sometime late next week.
State statute dictates the criteria for moving a trial must include the reasonable likelihood a jury decision will be based on pretrial information rather than the evidence provided. Judge Hall pointed out that the burden for changing a venue for a trial is one of the highest burdens of case law. Judge Hall also repeated the phrase “reasonable likelihood” in reference to alleged prejudice that would affect the jury pool.