Coalizione Italiana Contro la Pena di Morte
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]
[Blog]
[Webzine]