Martin pleads not guilty to additional charges

Friday, January 15, 2010

by Brian S. Orban

A Mountain Home man facing a third retrial on vehicular manslaughter entered a not guilty plea on two new felony charges related to the same incident during an arraignment Jan. 7.

In December, Michael Martin was bound over to district court to stand trial for felony drunk driving and another felony for leaving the scene of an accident.

Martin stands accused of running a car off Aguirre Road south of Mountain Home the morning of May 5, 2007. Juanita Ramirez and James Garner, both from Mountain Home, died during the crash.

Following a hearing Dec. 18, county prosecutor Kristina Schindele filed a motion to consolidate the new charges with two previous counts of vehicular manslaughter. Martin could stand trial on all four counts in March if Schindele's motion is granted.

If found guilty on the two new felonies, he faces a maximum punishment of 15 years in prison along with subsequent fines and loss of his driver's license for six years.

Since 2007, Martin was tried twice on charges that included vehicular manslaughter. Juries in both trials never reached a verdict on these manslaughter charges over arguments on whether both vehicles collided, leading to the crash.

Citing a previous court case in Florida, Schindele argued that physical contact is not a requirement in this type of accident. The prosecutor said Martin's erratic driving, which included closing to within inches of Ramirez' car, were a main factor.

In addition, Schindele said Martin deliberately fled the accident scene before emergency crews arrived to conceal his involvement in the crash. The prosecutor said he was afraid of being arrested for felony drunk driving, which also prompted him to lie to investigators.

During last month's hearing, defense attorney Terry Ratliff argued there was no evidence suggesting his client was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Referring to the 911 calls that included calls Martin made that morning, he added there's no evidence to suggest his client deliberately fled the scene to avoid prosecution.

Testimony presented in two earlier trials suggest Martin forced Ramirez' car off the road following an argument he had with his girlfriend, Britta Shannon, a passenger in the other vehicle. The defense argued that Martin and Ramirez were racing on Aguirre Road, also known as South 18th Street, when she lost control of her vehicle.

Comments

View 4 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

This case has been dragging on too long -- nearly three years. The families suffering a great loss need closure. A couple of points based on the information in the article:

1) If there is an existing precedence that says you don't have to collide with another vehicle causing it to drive off the road, why wasn't this brought up the first time? That was a major sticking point in the inability to reach a verdict.

2) If Martin didn't deliberately flee the scene, how did he leave it if not by his own choosing? Did someone force him to leave the scene of the accident, was it teleportation, alien abduction, what?

If these accounts mentioned in the article are on point, I'm not too impressed with some elements of the case presented on either side of the argument.

-- Posted by VicVega on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 7:36 AM
"In addition, Schindele said Martin deliberately fled the accident scene before emergency crews arrived to conceal his involvement in the crash. The prosecutor said he was afraid of being arrested for felony drunk driving, which also prompted him to lie to investigators."

He left the scene of the accident. A crime in itself. He did it of his own free will unless of course the aliens or voices made him do it.

The PD is no dumb bunny. The PA...well, another story (3 trials...same person...here is your sign). They claim that funding for prosecution is short in Elmore County. I wonder why.

This is not a nice person who is on trial. He is a criminal with a criminal history. From his record, he has a problem with right v. wrong and seems to choose wrong much of the time. Not his fault that his PD is smarter than the ECPA. At least there is a good PD in town. Most PD's could give a rats-u-know-what about a client. If you are ever in trouble, and can qualify for a PD...be happy it is Mr. Ratliff and you will at least get a good defense. I agree with Vic and CJW, this has gone on too long. Our PA sucks. What a waste of money. They need to invest in a new ECPA with a budget/finance background. $75K is too much for what she is, IMHO.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 10:10 AM
As you diss on the ECPA, remember that she was voted in. If you are that unhappy with the job she is doing, then make sure someone else is voted in at the next election. She was successful for our case and Lord knows that I had some very serious doubts in the beginning. And, no matter how her case is presented, it's up to the jury to decide.

-- Posted by OldEnough2Know on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 11:13 PM
Well put, "cant justwatch". Maybe for the third trial, instead of relying on a jury decision they'll just flip a coin.

-- Posted by GFYS69 on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 5:26 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register