Mark Crawford Trial: 1999 - Suppressed Evidence And Conflicting Testimony

The state's biggest problem was that it couldn't present a motive for Brueggan's murder. At this point, there were no indictments against Viking Casualty or any of its subsidiaries or against Crawford, Brueggan, or anyone else in connection with the alleged activities of the "family." Because of that, no evidence concerning the federal investigation could be introduced. The second problem was that while Johnson and Beckcom both testified against Crawford, they told different stories. In both his cross-examinations and summation, Crawford's lawyer, Bill May, pointed up the inconsistencies.

The jury was deadlocked 10-2 in favor of a guilty verdict. In spite of the weakness of the state's case, there was a lot of suspicion of Crawford in Aransas County. But there wasn't enough for a unanimous verdict.

The state moved for a new trial. But this time in was held in San Antonio, Texas, in Bexar County. The people there had no feeling about Crawford one way or the other. The testimony of Johnson and Beckcom did not impress them.

"One of them said one thing, then the other said something else," May commented later. "The jury couldn't believe either one."

The jury found him not guilty.