By Monica Alonzo
By Ray Stern
By New Times Staff
By Stephen Lemons
By Chris Parker
By Monica Alonzo
By Stephen Lemons
By Robrt L. Pela
Almost eight years after Faylene Grant drowned at her Gilbert home, her husband, Doug, faced a county judge last Friday, May 15, to hear his fate.
The 43-year-old onetime nutritionist for the Phoenix Suns was handcuffed, shackled, and wearing a black-and-white-striped jail suit that's been his attire since a jury convicted him of manslaughter.
Judge Meg Mahoney had several sentencing options in the high-profile case that New Times covered extensively before, during, and after the trial:
• Prosecutor Juan Martinez asked her to order the "super-aggravated" sentence of 12 1/2 years in prison.
• Grant's family pleaded for probation, possible under Arizona law, though highly unlikely given the circumstances.
• An adult probation officer was recommending more than the presumptive, or average, term of five years behind bars.
• Grant's defense attorney, Mel McDonald, was asking for the mitigated sentence of just under four years.
"Judge, he's a good and decent man," McDonald told Mahoney in a barely audible rasp. "Please give him a light at the end of his tunnel."
Mahoney had sat through months of an unusually tense trial that captured the imagination of the national media.
Now, in a courtroom packed with members of both Doug's and Faylene's families, trial jurors, media, and the merely interested, the judge was about to impose sentence.
(Some jurors had favored a guilty verdict of first-degree murder before they eventually compromised to the less-serious charge of manslaughter. One jury member sat with Faylene's family during the sentencing.)
Before announcing her decision, Judge Mahoney heard from those hoping for a lenient sentence and from hang 'em high prosecutor Martinez. Earlier, she also read dozens of letters both favoring and damning Grant.
But Dewitt explained that so-called farewell letters penned by 35-year-old Faylene to Hilary and many others during her last weeks helped change his mind.
Faylene reiterated in several of these letters that Hilary should become the new "earthly" mother of her four children as soon as Faylene died.
"As strange as this story is and this trial has been," Dewitt said, "I want to tell Faylene, 'Faylene, you could not have picked a better person to be the mother of your children.'"
A tearful Hilary Grant said her husband "will pay a terrible price for the rest of his life" for mistakes he made on the morning of September 27, 2001 — including twice calling a physician's assistant instead of 911 after he'd lifted Faylene out of the bathtub.
But, she continued, "Doug lives for family. He's never said one harsh word about Faylene. I know how much Doug misses [her]."
Grant's son Bowan (from his first marriage) told Mahoney he is about to graduate from high school and that his father had been the catalyst in straightening him out.
The last two speakers on Grant's behalf were his two sons with Faylene, Marley and Braven, 12 and 11, respectively. Hilary Grant, who adopted the boys years ago, stood with them as they addressed the judge.
"I am here because I know my dad is innocent," Marley Grant said. "I know that my mom [Faylene] would want my dad to be forgiven. I know he did everything he could to try to save her."
Sobbing, Braven said his father "has been the best dad. I know he would never do anything to hurt my mom in Heaven or here. Please let my dad come home. I love my dad."
Voice dripping with sarcasm, Juan Martinez said when it was his turn "how wonderful a father [Grant] is, because he has provided a field trip for Marley and Braven today. Can you imagine that there isn't going to be any psychological scarring to these kids by bringing them here to see their father in the middle of this spectacle?" (Hilary had taken the two youngest boys into the lobby before Martinez began his remarks.)
Martinez told the judge that Doug Grant murdered Faylene while Marley, Braven, and their half-sister Jenna Stradling were nearby in the home.
"He is not, in our view, a wonderful father," the prosecutor said.
As he did during the trial, Martinez continued to hit hard at Grant's supposed bad character, telling Mahoney that the defendant had engaged "in some sort of threesome" with Faylene and Hilary.
"It's just tawdry," the prosecutor said, "this ménage à trois, as the French call it, that he [went] through."
Actually, Martinez presented no evidence that Doug and ex-girlfriend Hilary ever even saw each other, much less engaged in sexual improprieties, after Doug and Faylene remarried in July 2001.
Certainly, though, the relationship between the trio was, at best, unorthodox. They all stayed in close telephone contact during the two months before Faylene died, and Hilary and Faylene swapped several letters during that time.
Going off his script after Martinez finished, Doug Grant attacked the prosecutor for impugning his parenting skills.
He "hasn't a clue" about being a father, Grant said of Martinez, who has no children of his own.
More on point, Grant noted that not immediately calling 911 on the fatal morning "will haunt me the rest of my life." (Grant again claimed he did call 911 about seven minutes after he first called the physician's assistant, though he never could prove it during trial.)
Comments here show how vulnerable we all are to unscrupulous, ambitious prosecutors and foolish jurors. And consider the hysterical Anna who would convict him because of adultery and even that was never established. A complete travesty.
What I think personaly ?....this is such a strange story.Doug is a very sick BASTARD!! what a freakin hippocret going to church the house of god knowing he commited one of the biggest sins NOT JUST ONE TIME!!,TIME AFTER TIME OVER AND OVER! Im sorry but I dont feel bad that this adulterrer is going to prison he should have been givin at least ten years sorry but thats just how I feel.As for Faylene im sure she was a great person but she may have been manipulated by this ***hole.I hope you rott in hell Doug you PIG!!!!!!!
i suppose if he didn't F around on his wife, but more importantly called 911 when he would probably NOT be convicted. but who...besides someone who just tried killing his wife ...would NOT call 911, and instead call some physician's asst? and even if he did call 911 7 MINUTES AFTER calling the asst, that is wayyy too long. what was he doing during those long 7 minutes? maybe cleaning up his crime scene? guity all the way. too bad he only got 5 years.
It is, unfortunately, in our current justice system, for prosecutors to paint the worst possible picture of a defendent in order to secure a conviction. The trial is by its very nature an adversarial process, and prosecutors have nothing to gain by being fair or impartial; quite the contrary, they have everything to gain by being mean-spirited and oblivious to evidence favoring the defendent. This is what has happened to Doug Grant. The police investigator and prosecutor in his case were determined, at any cost, to ensure a conviction. The investigator really went out of his way to conjure scenarios which would support an indictment. And the prosecutor followed suit to ensure a conviction. How the jury was able to reach a fair and impartial judgment in view of such pressure from the prosecution is no mystery; it simply wasn't possible. And, so, Doug Grant will spend years in prison to satiate the blood thirst of the investigator and prosecutor.
David: Your comments are the typical crap unloaded by Grant's supportors. Not calling 911 in a situation where there is strong evidence you want someone has always been criminal. I am aware of a case where a woman stabbed her boyfried clearly in self defense but than was prosecuted for allowing him to bleed to death. What were the Judges mistakes you complain about sustaining objections when Mel could not ask a nonleading question. Appealing based on post trial statements of jurors is virtually never a winning one. Paul Rubin while a fine writer and one I typically admire became much to partisan in this case.
Well you heard it here first in aribama, not calling 911 promptly will cost you 5 years of your life..even though there is no precedent to uphold it. APPEAL!! im sure he will win that, especially given the statements by the jury after the fact. On a more personal note, im appalled at the judges actions, or lack there of, and im still wondering how a seasoned detective who got promoted because of this case isnt being held accountable for the same laws Grant was convicted of...unless lying in a grand jury proceeding became legal and i never heard about it...I think Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would be interested in that part.
Find everything you're looking for in your city
Find the best happy hour deals in your city
Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%
Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city