Opinion ID: 761720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Criminal Trials of Spurlock and Marshall

Text: 6 On May 9, 1990, Whitley and defendant Assistant District Attorney Jerry Kitchen presented Apple's statements to a Sumner County grand jury, which then indicted Spurlock and Marshall for the first degree murder of Malone. According to Spurlock and Marshall, in order to ensure that they would be convicted, Whitley and Kitchen also threatened Priscilla Blakemore 6 with criminal prosecution if she did not falsely state that she had seen Marshall on the night of the murder with mud all over his clothes, and that he had confessed to her that night. 7 On September 27, 1990, a jury convicted Marshall of first degree murder. On October 17, 1990, a jury also convicted Spurlock of first degree murder. Both Spurlock and Marshall were subsequently sentenced to life in prison. Thereafter, they both filed post-trial motions seeking new trials and alleging prosecutorial misconduct and violations of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs claim that while their appeals were pending, Satterfield and other conspirators attempted to prevent them from receiving new trials by doing such things as giving hush money to Apple in order to ensure his continuing silence concerning the previous events. Marshall's motion for a new trial was denied on November 6, 1990 and Spurlock's motion was denied on January 11, 1991. 7 8 Despite the defendants' efforts, Marshall eventually won his appeal and was granted a new trial on December 1, 1992. See State v. Marshall, 845 S.W.2d 228 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992). In May 1993, Spurlock's conviction was reversed and remanded and a new trial was ordered. See Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d at 620-22 (holding that the prosecution had unconstitutionally suppressed exculpatory evidence, including the April 27, 1990 tape recorded conversation between Apple, Coarsey and Whitley). The court also held that Whitley unconstitutionally elicited false testimony from Satterfield and Apple at trial. Id. The court further concluded that Satterfield falsely testified when, during his direct examination, he replied that no promises had been made to Apple and that the April 30 interview was the first time that Apple had made any statements concerning the crime. Id. 9 For Spurlock's second murder trial, Whitley recused himself as prosecutor, allegedly in order to bolster Apple's credibility. In January 1995, Apple and Whitley falsely testified against Spurlock. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of this false testimony, Spurlock was convicted of second degree murder and subsequently sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. Spurlock's subsequent motions for a new trial were denied, and Spurlock once again appealed his conviction and sentence. 10 Thereafter, Whitley was busy at work in Marshall's case. Whitley offered Marshall a best interest plea in which Marshall would not have to admit guilt for the Malone murder. In return, Marshall would receive a ten year probationary sentence. According to plaintiffs, Marshall acquiesced in the offer in order to avoid again being convicted on false testimony and incarcerated. Second Amended Complaint, at p 25. Consequently, Marshall was sentenced to an alternative ten year sentence, which would end in the year 2005. 11 During the period of Spurlock's appeal and Marshall's sentence, Bob Baker, a Lieutenant with the S.C.S.D., conducted a new investigation into the Malone murder and obtained information linking other individuals to the crime. As a result of this investigation, these other individuals confessed to the Malone murder. On March 6, 1996, Spurlock's and Marshall's convictions were again vacated and new trials ordered.