Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present » Mark Crawford Trial: 1999 - Evidence Of A Body, Suppressed Evidence And Conflicting Testimony, Enter The Feds

Mark Crawford Trial: 1999 - Suppressed Evidence And Conflicting Testimony

jury brueggan johnson couldn

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.

Mark Crawford Trial: 1999 - Enter The Feds [next] [back] Mark Crawford Trial: 1999 - Evidence Of A Body

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

over 7 years ago

I was Mark Crawfords cellmate in the Rockport city jail prior to his trials. I never formed an opinion as to whether or not he was guilty but was flabergasted when I heard the Feds where the ones to get him convicted after his not guilty verdict by the state. I cant understand why double jeopardy doesn't apply here.