News

Feedback from the Issue of Thursday, April 23, 2009

Page 2 of 2

Trials are about evidence, which this one lacked: Doug Grant was "reckless" because of stuff he did after Faylene died?

How did that contribute to her death? Because he attempted CPR on a bed? [Should he have] tried it in a tub full of water?

As for the 911 call, he was scared, his wife was dead after a major fall [earlier in Utah], and he called a medical person he trusted. Obviously, 911 would have been the smart choice, but if she was already dead, this in no way contributed to her death.

Murder trials aren't supposed to be about how much you did or didn't like the guy; they're supposed to be about evidence. And the evidence I see is of a woman who'd been hinting about suicide for a long time and ended up OD'd in the bathtub.

How could six [jurors] vote for premeditation? What evidence did [they] have that he planned this in advance?

If the letters were really withheld from the pathologist, I'd be pissed as a juror.

[This kind of thing] is why I don't want to streamline the death-penalty process. It's not because I'm soft on crime. It's because people keep getting their death-row cases overturned because some ass-hat prosecutor [or police officer] lied and/or withheld evidence that proved the innocence of the defendant.

Look at the Duke University lacrosse team fiasco. [Jurors] should be pissed at this cop for using [them].
Mike Wells, via the Internet



Yellow journalism — or worse: Paul Rubin's article is beyond yellow journalism. It is, in fact, chromatically canary journalism. Rubin has been in the Grant camp since day one.

When has a reporter been allowed access to a private meeting between an accused [man] and a defense attorney regarding the defendant's taking the stand?

Is this how the truth gets shaped? Incredible journalism. Keep up the deceptive work.
Dorothy Gale, Wichita, Kansas

Shame on the judge, jury, and prosecutor: This whole situation is a tragedy for both sides. However, the truth remains that there is no evidence that Mr. Grant killed his wife.

He was convicted for not calling 911 right away and for doing CPR on a bed instead of the floor. Are you kidding me? The guy might not be so nice, but that is not the same as being a criminal.

The facts are that you have a dirty cop and a jury that convicted on perception, not facts. Mr. Grant should have never been convicted in this situation, and I hope he chooses to appeal.

This case seemed to be more about personalities (the judge's, the prosecution's, the defense's) and not about protecting Mr. Grant's rights as a defendant.

I feel bad for Mr. Grant and his family (including Faylene and her family); however, this was not the right thing to do. The judge, jury, and prosecutor should be ashamed.
Name withheld

Defense attorney's a reputed clown: Mel McDonald lost this case because his ego is more important than his client.

This is a case that called for a defense counsel who calmly attacks the evidence, but Mel always has to attempt to bully. He has been living off his reputation for years and is viewed as a clown by [many] in the criminal-law field.

Doug Grant would've been much better off with Jay Adelman as first chair, because Jay is a professional who can ask questions instead of a clown who blusters.
Name withheld

Defense attorney saved Grant a tougher verdict: Doug would have been nailed for first-degree murder with any attorney other than Mel McDonald.

I've followed several cases of McDonald's, and he comes across as knowledgeable and well spoken. It is clear that he puts his heart and soul into his clients and their cases.

It is difficult to get your side of things out in open court when you have a judge that allows the prosecutor to control what is said and which evidence can be included.

And speaking of evidence: McDonald did focus on the evidence, or blatant lack thereof. The jury agreed that there wasn't any evidence, but they convicted anyway.

Judge Meg Mahoney allowed Martinez to completely control this entire process. McDonald did an amazing job, considering both hands were tied. Doug would have been looking at 20 to 30 years without him.
Name withheld

A creep? Yes. A killer? Not sure: Great, great story. This was a lot to put together. I went back and read the early stories that you did on the case, and I wonder why the police officer was not a factor at the trial. The investigation was so bad.

It sounds like Grant was reckless, though how much was criminal and how much wasn't I don't know. I want to know how six people voted for premeditated first-degree murder — even if he was a creep (there are a lot of them out there). This case should be a book.
Name withheld

KEEP PHOENIX NEW TIMES FREE... Since we started Phoenix New Times, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Phoenix, and we'd like to keep it that way. With local media under siege, it's more important than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" program, allowing us to keep offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food and culture with no paywalls.