US court hears arguments in Corbett murder case appeal

North Carolina’s supreme court heard arguments on Monday regarding a lower court’s ruling to overturn the convictions of Thomas Martens and Molly Martens, with a ruling to follow at a future date.

Found guilty in August 2017 of murdering Irish man Jason Corbett, Martens, a retired FBI agent, and his daughter Molly Martens had their convictions overturned last February, but the decision was appealed by prosecutors.

Mr Corbett (39), from Limerick, was found dead inside his North Carolina home in August 2015.

His wife Ms Martens and her father were convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 20-to-25 years in prison two years later.

In February 2020, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that both had grounds for a new trial.

Friday’s hour-long hearing brought arguments from prosecutors and the defence regarding key elements of the case.

Both addressed the significance of further testimony that was not admitted at the initial trial regarding a brick paver that was allegedly used in the incident.

Testimony from Mr Corbett’s children, Jack and Sarah, was denied admittance at the initial trial.

According to attorneys representing Mr Martens and his daughter, the children were said to have been awakened in the middle of the night on multiple occasions and were not permitted to join their father and Molly because Jason would grow “angry”.

Alleged instances of domestic violence - between Mr Corbett and Molly Martens, relayed to the children by her - were not admitted in court in 2017, which would have spoken to the frame of mind of the defendants, according to Doug Kingsbery, who represented Mr Martens and Ms Martens.

The court also heard that the children’s testimony would not necessarily have spoken toward Mr Martens’s state of mind at the time of the incident, however.

Associate Justice Samuel Ervin asked if Ms Marten’s state of mind could be addressed by the children’s testimony. Jonathan Babb, a prosecuting attorney, acknowledged that it could have done so, but argued that additional evidence presented was deemed crucial to the convictions.

“The trial court found that the children’s statements did not meet [precedent required for admittance],” Babb said. “The trial court…found that the objective circumstances of the record surrounding each child’s interview do not indicate that Sarah and Jack understood the purpose of the interview was to gain information from them for their medical diagnosis or treatment.”