Details of Clay's Case
In May 1994 Rick Clay was arrested for the murder of Randy Martindale who was shot to death in his estranged wife's home. Clay was found guilty in June 1995 in
In 1990, Chuck Sanders and Stacy Martindale both worked for Media Press in
She would often come by Sanders’ residence in
Sanders, who was initially receptive to the prospect of killing Stacey’s husband, said during testimony that in the few months leading up to the murder that he and Stacey talked several times on how to kill him. Soon thereafter, Sanders confided in close friends of Rick Clay and Darryl Jones about his conversations with Stacey. When questioned about his conversation with Clay, Sanders said that “I asked Ricky what he would think if I killed Randy.”
Clay’s response was that it “would be a stupid thing to do,” adding during testimony that nobody took remarks like that seriously, that in 1993, most friends of Clay and Sanders were often taking methamphetamine and drinking and spouting off threats.
In early 1993, Clay – a professed drug distributor at the time – borrowed Sanders' car to deliver some Meth, and carried with him drug paraphernalia such as vials, scales, and baggies.
Some three blocks from where he and Chuck shared a house, a Sikeston Police Officer made a routine traffic stop. Clay, panicking, ran from the car with the bag containing the illicit items. Soon realizing he was cornered, Clay then hid the case and surrendered.
After extensive questioning, Clay said he ran from police because he did not have a valid driver’s license. However, police officers later searching the area and found the case and its illegal contents.
Clay was charged with the possession of meth, drug paraphernalia, and unlawful use of a weapon.
After posting bond, Clay admits he continued to sell methamphetamine to pay for the attorney he attained that he hoped would keep him out of prison.
As of May 1994, Clay’s case had yet to go to trial. He again borrowed Sanders’ car while he was at work to run errands for then-girlfriend Candy Richmond. It was
After completing their errands, Clay dropped off
When Martindale arrived, Clay got out of the car and left Sanders and Martindale to talk alone, returning inside Radio Shack to talk to another friend, Mike Frederick, who also worked at the store.
After Clay and Frederick briefly discussed plans of going to Hardee's to pick something up to eat, Sanders and Martindale came into the store. Clay testified that he could tell Sanders and Martindale had been arguing – arguments had become more frequent between the two, according to Clay.
Sanders then confided in Clay that he was angry because Martindale and her husband Randy had dinner together the night before. When Clay told Sanders that he and Frederick were hungry and going to a nearby Hardee's to eat, Sanders suggested that Clay should ride with Martindale, and explain Sander’s feelings for her. Clay agreed to the ride from Martindale.
After a very short trip to Hardee's (visible from Radio Shack), ordering food, and waiting to pay, Sanders pulled behind Clay and Martindale. Clay got his food, got out of the car to speak with Sanders, and Stacy drove off. When Sanders asked Clay where she was going, Clay said Martindale told him she had a girl's night out. Sanders, upset by the Martindale’s decision to leave, asked if Clay explained to her how he felt. Clay told Sanders: “I'm not sure how you feel.”
Deposition of Chuck Sanders April 24, 1994
Present Attorney Bob Wolfrum - Attorney for Rick Clay
Prosecutors Riley Bock & Hulshoff.
Page 61 thru 71 (Starting at Line 7 on Page 61)
Conversation between Stacy Martindale and Chuck Sanders at Radio Shack - May 19, 1994
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) What was the conversation there by your car?A: (Chuck Sanders) She was at her last rope you know she was down to the end of her rope. She really needed this done, if I wasn't going to do it. Should I continue? If I wasn't going to it, to quit stringing her along, you know quit telling her that I would think about it, or that I didn't want to hear anything about it, to give her a definite yes or no answer. And you know I don't remember her exact words, but I think she called my manhood into question and said if I didn't do it I wasn't much of a man taking care of her and Brett or something like that.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay and you, did you just say there was a fairly heated discussion?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yeah, that was pretty heated. She was insulting me.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Was that something Rick or Mike Frederick saw?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I don't know if they would have seen it or not. I would think that they probably recognized by body posture I was agitated. If they looked outside they may have seen it, yeah
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Is the front of Radio shack pretty much a glass front.?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yes, it's a glass front.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay and it was close to the time this
the store?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yes.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Anything else that she said?
A: (Chuck Sanders) She said if I wasn't going to do it, she would get somebody who would,
and she intimated that she was gonna go talk to Rick. And I told her that nobody else was
gonna do anything for her, and that you know to leave Rick alone leave him out of it and that
I wouldn't have anything to do with it. She asked what she was suppose to do and I told her
what my advice was.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) And what was your advice?
A: (Chuck Sanders) That if she is a battered spouse, she needed to get herself a gun and when
he beat her, she could kill him and then she could claim spousal abuse.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) What was her response to that?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I don't remember if she had a verbal response. It was, I don't think she
was very happy with the idea that I would not help her.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. Did she say to you why she didn't want to do that?
A: (Chuck Sanders) NO, no she didn't. I don't recall her bringing up any specific objections.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. Um what happened next? You said she said that if you wouldn't do it she'd talk to somebody else and you said intimated that she was gonna talk to Rick?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I believe so. I'm not sure if she said Rick's name, I can't, she just said that I was gonna go talk to Rick, but that was an earlier synopsis, so I linked the two of them together in my mind. I think by that time she knew that I had talked about it.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) And at that point was Rick still in the store?
A: (Chuck Sanders) He was inside, yes.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay what happened next?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Um, I got in my car and drove up to the front of the Radio Shack. We were, I was parked in the parking lot, I don't remember, but I'm not sure the distance from the front of Radio Shack, so I pulled right up in front of the store. She got in her car and pulled up, we both walked in the store. Mike was closing, and the quicker that, you know, the more I could help him, the quicker, he could close, so I was going to help him close, and I told Rick that, you know, she would not listen to me, she didn't understand me and asked if he would go and try to make my position plain to Stacy
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Was he, prior to that point, was he gonna go with her to your knowledge?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Oh, no.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay and you're saying it was your request, that you requested that he go with her?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I requested that he talk to her, yes.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. And tell her your position?
A: (Chuck Sanders) About where I stood with her, about everything, you know, that I, I wanted him to make it plain to her that I couldn't get myself in that kind of position.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Anything else that you told him at that point?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I don't recall whose suggestion it was that we go to Hardee's and eat. It may have been Mike's or Rick's. I don't think it was mine. Could have even been Stacy's. And so I think either I said or Mike said well Rick why don't you run over there with Stacy and I had to change clothes and I'd be right behind them and we go eat at Hardees, and I figured that would give him a chance for Rick to tell her how I felt.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Up to the point had you made it clear to Rick Clay that it was your intention that Randy Martindale not be killed through any act on your part?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yes.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Had you ever asked him to kill Randy Martindale?
A: (Chuck Sanders) No.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) From what you have said to him, had you made it clear to him that it was not your desire that Randy Martindale be killed?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yes, I believe he felt that I took his advice, that it would be stupid to have anything to do with it.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) So, he and Stacy rode to Hardee's?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yes.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) And, what did you do?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Um , I went in the back, I had on my work clothes my they were dressy clothes, so I decided to change into jeans and by that time Mike had reports ran and he locked up the store, turned on the alarm and he took his van and I took my car over to Hardee's.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. How long after Rick and Stacy had left would it have been that you made it to Hardee's
A: (Chuck Sanders) Maybe 10 minutes.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. Did you know about any plans that Rick had for the evening?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yes Rick was going to a birthday party for his present girlfriend.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. Okay, once you arrived at Hardee's what happened?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I drive in the front parking lot which is the parking lot that faces Wal-Mart, and drove around the parking lot and Stacy wasn't there, so there was a little road by a cemetery that goes around, you can go out on it to get to the other parking lot of Hardee's, so I drove around there and as I drove in that parking lot I saw Stacy's car pulling through the drive thru from the highway.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay, what did you do next?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I pulled up next to her and talked to Rick about ordering food. They had decided to order food through the drive-thru, and I didn't remember if I told him what Mike wanted or if he already found out from Mike what he wanted, but he stayed in Stacy's car and ordered his and Mike's food and I made a little loop and pulled in behind him, and pulled through the drive thru behind them to order my food
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay, what happened next?
A: (Chuck Sanders) As I was at the window waiting for my food, Stacy let Rick out of the car and left, and Rick got in Mike's van and gave him his food.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) And what did Rick do then?
A: (Chuck Sanders) He started eating his food then and I pulled out through the drive thru with my food and up beside and Rick got out of Mike's van and got in my car.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) And when Rick got in your car, did you all have a conversation?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yeah, because I was kind of upset because she had left without saying goodbye. There didn't seem to be any kind of closure or resolution to the conflict and Rick said that he tried to make plain to her my position, and he said that maybe he hadn't understood what my position was with her, you know, if I wanted to carry on the relationship or what. I got a little bit miffed with Rick, you know, because I wanted him to make everything good and right.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Did he say anything about talking to her about killing Randy Martindale?
A: (Chuck Sanders) No he said she had to leave. The reasoning why she rushed off is she had to go to girls night out or something like that.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. But, it was, was it your intention that he tell her, what, you still had feelings for her, but you did not want to get involved in anything illegal or what was your intention for him to tell her?
A: (Chuck Sanders) No, I meant for him to get the relationship part straight. I had made myself plain to her as far as being involved with the killing of Randy goes. I wanted him to explain to her that I still cared for her and wanted to see my son, but I didn't want to be badgered anymore or I didn't want her bringing this to me anymore
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Did he say he'd said that to her?
A: (Chuck Sanders) No, he didn't say exactly what this conversation was.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) And your estimate is their conversation could have lasted 10 minutes?
A: (Chuck Sanders) 15 including the drive thru, at the most I would think.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. Okay. Okay, so you and Rick were together in the car as that the whole conversation that you had with Rick that you can remember?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Um, he asked me where I was going from there and I told him I had to get my parents an anniversary gift, and he told me again I already knew this but he told me again that he was having a party for Candy at J.D's and be sure to be there, he didn't want me going home and being mad or anything.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Had Stacy heard mention of this party?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Not that I know of. I don't recall saying anything to her. She wasn't privy to that conversation, so.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. Did she know or had she ever met candy?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Not that I know of, no.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay, Urn, prior to the 19th, had you ever been present at, do you know where Rosie's is here?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Sure.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Had you ever been there present with Rick and or Stacy?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I've been there with Rick numerous times. I don't recall ever seeing Stacy there. I think Rick had told me that he saw her there one night.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Do you remember when that would have been?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Months previous, I guess.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Would it have been in '94?
A: (Chuck Sanders) If so, it would have been very early '94, most likely '93
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) In May of '94 had you been in Rosie's with Rick?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I don't remember, I believe that it's possible, yeah.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay, is that a common place that you might have stopped off for a drink if you were here?
A: (Chuck Sanders) On Sunday's, yes.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Okay. And at Wal-Mart you got a present?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yes I got a coffee maker for my parent's anniversary.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Did you buy anything else at Wal-Mart?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Not that I recall.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) You said you went to Tammy Chad's?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Yes.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Who is she?
A: (Chuck Sanders) She's a friend of mine. Richard Chad's younger sister.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) Is she a girlfriend?
A: (Chuck Sanders) Just a female friend.
Q: (Bob Wolfrum) And what was your purpose in going there?
A: (Chuck Sanders) I had been there the night before. I locked my keys in my car and had to stay over that night, and I told her that I would come back that evening to see what she was doing, see if she wanted to go out or whatever.
Clay's Side of the Story
Before leaving Hardee’s, Clay told Sanders he believed Sanders’s trip to Wal-Mart was strange since it was the first time he had mentioned it, and the original plan between the two was to go to a friend’s house and “freshen up” before leaving for the party for
Arriving at JD’s, Clay discovered
Clay arrived at the motel, and was given methamphetamine on credit with the intention to distribute quickly. As he was leaving the motel, Clay witnessed Chuck Sanders and Stacy Martindale arriving. Clay spoke with both, adding he had acquired the meth but needed to sell it quickly in order to pay back the supplier. Martindale then told Clay that she was interested, but needed to go back to the home she still shared with Randy Martindale to pick up cash to pay Clay. Sanders then suggested Clay ride with he and Martindale to get the money from Martindale’s home. Clay agreed, and all left
The three soon arrived at the Martindale home, and Stacy parked half in and half out of the home’s carport. Martindale then entered the home while Clay and Sanders stayed in the car. Clay testified that within a few minutes, Randy Martindale and the couple’s two sons arrived home after attending a baseball game. Randy Martindale and the two sons walked by Stacy’s car where Clay and Sanders sat, and entered the home through the carport. Shortly thereafter (minutes), Randy came back out the carport door, and asked Clay and Sanders what they were doing. Clay testified they told him they were waiting on Stacy and then going to a party. Randy Martindale then told them that Stacy wasn't going anywhere and that they better leave, then turned and went back into the house.
A few minutes later, Stacy Martindale came to the same door in the carport and motioned for Sanders to come to the door. Sanders got out of the car and had a brief conversation with Stacy that Clay testified he could not hear. Sanders then returned to the car told Clay to get in the front seat, that they were going to pick up his car and bring Stacy Martindale’s car back to the home.
In order to get around Randy Martindale’s car, Clay said that Sanders had to pull forward and back up repeatedly to get around Randy's car and in the process, apparently inadvertently snagged a child's toy from the carport.
According to Clay, as the two (Sanders and Clay) proceeded on Dawson's road, several witnesses saw the Camaro car dragging the toy and sparks emanating from the pavement -- including New Madrid City police officer Claude McFerren. When McFerren passed and turned on his patrol lights, Clay instructed Sanders to stop the car and let him out in an attempt to escape with the methamphetamine.
Clay, realizing he couldn't afford to get caught with the drugs since he was still facing drug charges from Scott County, Missouri and still owed payment to the attorney who was representing him. In addition, Clay also cites the fact that meth wasn't paid for and promised several family members that he was through with drugs, so running “seemed like the best thing to do” at that moment.
Clay and Sanders came to a stop on a gravel road that briefly diverted then intersected back with
When daylight came, Clay said that he could see police looking up and down the levee, and a helicopter flying overhead. Concerned with the apparent extent of the police search, Clay reasoned that Martindale had told her husband about the drugs, who in turn told police that Clay and Sanders had stolen the car, or that Sanders had gotten caught and told them that Clay ran because of the drugs he possessed and his pending charges in
Shortly thereafter, believing that the area was clear and police had moved on, Clay exited the woods but was soon spotted by a plain clothes police officer who pointed his gun and told Clay he was under arrest. Instinctively, Clay says he ran back into the woods, and tossed the methamphetamine and contents of the black bag into the water, and the bag itself onto the ground. It was there that he was arrested by three officers and transported to New Madrid County Sheriff's Office. There, Clay was questioned by Sgt. Dennis Overby of the New Madrid Police Department, who told informed Clay he was being charged with the murder of Randy Martindale. Clay told the officer that “he hadn't killed anybody” but that he wanted to talk to an attorney, and that if the lawyer advised him to give a statement, he would.
Questionable Evidence
Richard Clay was sentenced to death based entirely on circumstantial evidence. No physical evidence linking Clay to the murder of Randy Martindale was ever found. Hair fibers and fingerprints taken from the crime scene did not match Clay or his clothes. The murder weapon was never found. However, gunshot residue was actually found on the hands of Stacy Martindale, and the State’s own expert witness testified that it was possible she fired the handgun.
In addition, the State relied primarily on the testimony of two people who not only admitted to plotting to kill Randy Martindale -- his wife Stacy and her lover Chuck Sanders -- but also the two people who had the most motive to do so.
Crucial to the prosecution’s case was their claim that Clay killed Randy Martindale and escaped alone in Stacy’s car. However several witnesses – including in an unsigned affidavit by the officer in pursuit of the car – say they saw two people in the car.
When the officer arrived on the scene he reported both car doors were open. Prosecutors allege Clay drove the vehicle alone, pulled over, and had the wherewithal to climb over the center console and open both doors in an effort to throw off police, then flee on foot.
The State claims another crucial piece of evidence linking Clay to the crime was a live .380 caliber Remington shell (the same caliber used to kill Martindale) found at 1 AM with a flashlight. According to State Trooper Greg Kenley, the shell was lying on a wet strip of dew-covered grass, and no footprints were evident in the area. Kenley marked the shell and called Deputy Hopkins to take pictures of the apparent evidence. The shell, which was dry but lying in wet grass, was found “150-200 yards” away from the closest footprints the prosecution claim were Clay’s when he exited out the passenger side of the car to flee. That means Clay would have had to throw the bullet the length of nearly two football fields after exiting the car, without leaving fingerprints. The Guinness Book of World Records notes the longest recorded throw of a baseball was 445 feet – or 148 yards.
In addition, State’s expert witness testified that casts taken of the footprints were inconclusive as a match to Clay’s shoes. {See testimony of Andy Wagoner Southeast Missouri Crime Lab}
Riley Bock's Theory of the murder plot and arrest of Clay
Prosecutor Riley Bock's theory is based on the belief that after Stacy Martindale could not convince Sanders to kill her husband after months of pleading, she was able to convince Clay to do it in 10 minutes.
Clay and Sanders then drove to the Martindale home, surprised Randy Martindale and shot him three times and left in a Camaro blocked in by Randy Martindale’s vehicle. Despite the fact that Clay would have had access to both vehicles, but chose the one that was blocked by the other, taking the time to make several point turns in an effort to get around the other vehicle. According to Bock, Clay then drove calmly to the edge of town passing several cars. Officer McFerren, was alerted to the car and the sparks from the toy underneath the vehicle, not to someone driving at a high rate of speed, recklessly, who supposedly just killed someone in their home. Seconds later, Clay stopped the vehicle in a panic, opened both car doors and turned on the windshield wipers, all to confuse the police officer only seconds behind him, and then climbed over a console and fled out the passenger's side door with the officer in sight. While running through fields to escape police, Clay got scared, paused, and threw one live .380 caliber shell “150 to 200 yards,” which managed to land in wet grass but remaining completely dry, and without any fingerprints.
This is a difficult theory to believe, at best. And if any primary component of this conjecture is off, the case against Clay disintegrates.
In May 2001, Federal district Judge Dean Whipple ordered a new trial for Clay, citing that prosecutors Bock and special prosecutor Hulshoff misrepresented a sentencing deal that they made with Sanders for his truthful testimony at Clay's trial.
Later, Whipple ruled Bock and Hulshof were guilty of withholding critical evidence that would have corroborated Clay’s testimony on the night of Martindale’s murder —evidence, as Whipple believed, that would have been beneficial to Clay’s claims of innocence.
Finally, Whipple added, Clay’s attorneys failed to conduct a reasonable investigation through his inability to locate three witnesses who saw the Camaro and its doors open simultaneously, and that Clay’s defense was essentially ineffective assistance of counsel. {The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled District Judge Whipple and ordered Clay's death sentence re-instated.}
1. The State Misrepresented Chuck's Plea Agreement
In the initial days following the crime, Chuck Sanders was charged with first degree murder punishable by death in the murder of Randy Martindale. However, Sanders was soon offered a deal by Bock for his truthful testimony against both Clay and Martindale. For his testimony, Sanders was offered a deal for five years probation, which by law was to be made known to all defendants and their attorneys.
The State says it revoked that plea offer after Sanders reported that he had disposed of a box of shells which he claimed to have forgotten about when questioned on an earlier occasion. Having revoked the original plea agreement, the State claimed that Sanders new plea agreement called for ten years in prison for conspiracy to commit murder in exchange for Sanders’ testimony, and as cited in the preliminary hearing for Stacy Martindale.
While Chuck's attorney later filed a motion to enforce the original plea agreement for probation, Sanders, while under questioning by Hulshof, originally told the jury that he would be getting ten years in prison for an unspecified crime. The actual testimony is as follows:
Q: (Mr. Hulshoff) Chuck, you've told us what you're charged with. What do you understand the arrangement or agreement is between yourself and the State of
A: (Mr. Sanders) My understanding of the current agreement is if I tell what I know truthfully that it would be recommended that I receive ten years in the State Penitentiary for an unspecified crime.
Q: (Mr. Hulshoff) Not probation but ten years?
A: (Mr. Sanders) Ten years in prison, yes.
Q: (Mr. Hulshoff) You understand that?
A: (Mr. Sanders) Yes sir.
On cross examination, Clay's attorney attempted to pursue the issue of whether Chuck's real agreement with the State was for probation. Chuck stated only that he believed he should receive probation and that his attorney had filed a motion to enforce the original plea agreement. On redirect, the State affirmed that Chuck's plea agreement was not for probation, but for the ten years in prison.
Q: (Mr. Hulshoff) And at that point [Chuck admitted that he had disposed of a partial box of .380 caliber shells and didn't tell them before he was given the plea agreement] this plea agreement for probation was revoked, was it not?
A: (Mr. Sanders) Yes, it was.
Q: (Mr. Hulshoff) What is your understanding of the sentence that you are going to receive, that's going to be recommended by Mr. Bock when you come to court?
A: (Mr. Sanders) My understanding is ten years in the penitentiary.
Q: (Mr. Hulshoff) And what do you hope for with your lawyer's help?
A: (Mr. Sanders) I hope that my lawyers will be able to, we have a motion right now that's pending, I hope that my lawyers will be able to argue the motion and make the prosecution stick to the original agreement.
Q: (Mr. Hulshoff) But if that's unsuccessful, if some judge later on, what is your expectation as to what sentence if any you will receive?
A: (Mr. Sanders) My lawyers have told me to count on the ten years and if I get anything better, to be happy with it.
(Closing Argument by Prosecutor Kenny Hulshoff)
And in regard to Chuck Sanders, ladies and gentleman, Chuck Sanders is going to get 10 years in prison ... Let there be no mistake about it.
Although no intervening event explains the State's position, the State amended the information provided to the court and charged Chuck Sanders with a Class D felony of tampering with evidence [Disposing of the.380 Caliber partial box of shells] and ultimately recommended only five years in prison. Hulshof and Bock had no intention of seeking the ten years in prison against Chuck Sanders, and instead lied to Clay’s jury.
Furthermore, the State agreed that Sanders’ could request a presentencing report and argued that the five years in prison should be suspended, that he should receive only probation. As a result of the State's amendments to the sentencing court, Sanders’ attorneys withdrew his motion to enforce the original agreement for probation at the time of his plea.
On August 22, 1996, the State Court sentenced Sanders to five years in the Department of Corrections, then suspended that sentence and placed him on five years probation -- with no prison time. In an affidavit to Clay’s attorney from Chuck Sanders dated April 14, 2001, he rejects his trial testimony of the plea agreement as being true. The following is the actual affidavit:
Chuck Sander's Affidavit April 14, 2001
That on the day of Clay's trial was scheduled to begin, I was in a room at the courthouse with my lawyers (Dan Graylik & Nancy McKerrow), the prosecutors (Riley Bock & Kenny Hulshoff) and other law enforcement officials. My lawyers were discussing my plea agreement with the prosecutors.
It was this day that I agreed to the ten year sentence in exchange for my testimony. Riley Bock told me the ten years would be what was on paper, but that he would not push it with my sentencing judge. Meaning he would not try to push the judge to actually sentence me to the ten years in prison.
Mr. Bock indicated that it couldn't appear to the jury that nothing was going to happen to me or they would not believe my testimony. My attorneys said that because the prosecutor wasn't going to push the ten year sentence, the court would never give me such a sentence. I never believed that I would receive a sentence of ten years in prison.
2. Trial Counsel's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation.
The American Bar Association Standards and the courts, including but not limited to the U.S. Supreme Court, hold that a defense attorneys duties include a full and complete investigation into any and all leads that may show innocence, affect witness credibility, mitigate the offense or punishment in any way, or show the caliber of police investigation and or decision to charge the defendant.
The American Bar Association standard and the courts have stated that this is required even in circumstances where the defendant has made admissions of guilt. Clay’s trial attorneys never appeared to conduct any type of investigation of his case -- there is not a single generated report from his defense team at the time or any investigator on behalf of Clay’s defense. Prior to his trial, no member of Clay’s defense team or any investigator bothered to ask questions in New Madrid.
Clay’s attorneys only took depositions from the State's witnesses. It was not until Clay’s post conviction relief did his new attorney, Greg Mermelstein, discover through his personal investigation that there were three statements made to police by three separate people who saw Officer McFerren attempt to stop the Camaro the night of Randy's murder. All three - Debra Garret, Scott Sullivan, and Samantha Fitzgerald -- ultimately gave personal affidavits claiming they saw two people in the spark-emanating Camaro that night..
3. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Withholding Evidence Favorable To Defendant
For decades the United States Courts have constantly held that prosecutors must disclose all evidence known to them, or known by the police. Prosecutors are deemed not as representative of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of sovereignty, and with an obligation to govern impartially.
The individual prosecutor's duty is not to win the case, but see that justice shall be done. {See Kyles V. Whitley 1995, Strickler v Greene 1999, Banks v. Dretke 2004, Berger v.
Statement by Samantha Fitzgerald -- February 13, 2001
That on May 19, 1994 I was traveling in a car with my sister Deborah Garrett, and my nephew, Scott Sullivan. We were returning home to New Madrid from a friend's house. I first noticed a Camaro that we recognized as Stacy's Martindale's car with sparks flying from under the car. I then saw a police car that appeared to be trying to head off the Camaro. I saw the Camaro stop and both doors open simultaneously. From the way the police car was positioned, the officer could not see both doors open at the same time due to all the dust that was being blown up from the car.
That I also saw a two tone white Bronco sitting by the school close to where the Camero stopped after the doors opened on the Camaro I noticed that the Bronco was gone. That I live very close to the scene where I witnessed the Camaro stop and after I returned home on the evening of May 19, 1994 there were several police officers in the area. I was interviewed by Officer Raymond Creasey of the New Madrid Police Department about my knowledge of anything that happened that night. I told Officer Creasey that I saw both doors open simultaneously. I was never again contacted by the police or any attorneys prior to Richard Clay's trial. If contacted by anyone I would have told him what I saw and have been willing to testify to such information at any court proceedings.
Scott Sullivan February 13, 2001
That on May 19, 1994 I was traveling in a car with my mother Deborah Garrett and my aunt, Samantha Fitzgerald. We were returning home to New Madrid from a friend's house. I first noticed a Camaro that we recognized as Stacy's Martindale's car with sparks flying from under the car. I then saw a police car that appeared to be trying to head off the Camaro. I saw the Camaro stop and both doors open simultaneously. From the way the police car was positioned, the officer could not see both doors open at the same time due to all the dust that was being blown up from the car.
That I also saw a two tone white Bronco sitting by the school close to where the Camaro stopped after the doors opened on the Camaro I noticed that the Bronco was gone. That I live very close to the scene where I witnessed the Camaro stop and after I returned home on the evening of May 19, 1994 there were several police officers in the area. I was interviewed by Officer Raymond Creasey of the New Madrid Police Department about my knowledge of anything that happened that night. I told Officer Creasey that I saw both doors open simultaneously. I was never again contacted by the police or any attorneys prior to Richard Clay's trial. If contacted by anyone I would have told him what I saw and have been willing to testify to such information at any court proceedings.
Deborah Garrett February 13, 2001
That on May 19, 1994 I was traveling in a cat with my sister Samantha Fitzgerald and my son Scott Sullivan. We were returning home to New Madrid from a friend's house. I first noticed a Camaro that we recognized as Stacy's Martindale's car with sparks flying from under the car. I then saw a police car that appeared to be trying to head off the Camaro. I saw the Camaro stop and both doors open simultaneously. From the way the police car was positioned, the officer could not see both doors open at the same time due to all the dust that was being blown up from the car.
That I also saw a two tone white Bronco sitting by the school close to where the Camaro stopped after the doors opened on the Camaro I noticed that the Bronco was gone.
That I live very close to the scene where I witnessed the Camaro stop and after I returned home on the evening of May 19, 1994 there were several police officers in the area. I was interviewed by Officer Raymond Creasey of the New Madrid Police Department about my knowledge of anything that happened that night. I told Officer Creasey that I saw both doors open simultaneously. I was never again contacted by the police or any attorneys prior to Richard Clay's trial. If contacted by anyone I would have told him what I saw and have been willing to testify to such information at any court proceedings.
Other Troubling Facts
Rayburn Evans Affidavit February 91 2001
Rayburn Evans says that he is the best friend of Randy Martindale and attended the trial of Clay and Stacy Martindale While at the courthouse in
“Officer McFerren told me that he saw two people in the Camaro that he attempted to stop on the night of Randy Martindale was killed. In addition, Officer McFerren told me that no matter what they tried to make him say, he knew there were two people in the Camaro.”
Claude McFerren’s Unsigned Affidavit
That in May 19 1994 I was employed as a deputy for the New Madrid County Sheriff's Department. That I was on duty May 19, 1994 when I began to follow the red Camaro later identified as Stacy Martindale's car. After the Camaro stopped I was the first person to approach the car to determine whether it was empty. That while I was at the scene of the red Camaro, one of the other officers who arrived was trooper Greg Kenley of the Missouri Highway Patrol. Trooper Kenley asked me about a set of footprints coming from the driver's side of the Camaro. I told him that they must have been my prints as I had approached the driver's side of the car and turned off the ignition. Any footprints that I left on the driver's side of the car would have covered prints made by the driver of the car as he exited the car.
That if I had been asked about any of the above information when I testified at the trial of the State of
Len Deschler's (Private Investigator) Affidavit
That on February 9, 2001 traveled to New Madrid Missouri in an attempt to obtain an affidavit from Claude McFerren,
That chief McFerren then stated. "I don't see why I can't sign this" McFerren then expressed concern that he should contact the prosecutor, Riley Bock, to obtain Bock' approval before signing the affidavit because Chief McFerren did not want to hurt his working relationship with the prosecutor by doing anything against Bock's wishes.
That Chief McFerren then talked to Riley Bock on the phone and stated that Bock wanted him to bring the affidavit to his office. Chief McFerren then asked Ms Brewer and me to follow him to Bock's office, which we did. Chief McFerren entered Bock's office with the affidavit while Ms Brewer and I waited in the car. Approximately five minutes later, Chief McFerren reappeared and told me that Riley Bock had told him not to sign the affidavit. Chief McFerren apologized handed me back the affidavit and we parted company.
Keith Neal Handwritten Affidavit
On April 7, 1999, I spoke with Claude McFerren outside of his house. Claude told me that the night of Randy Martindale's murder he stopped a vehicle with two occupants on Dawson Roadfor C&I driving. He thought the driver was drunk.When he approached the vehicle both doors were open, the windshield wipers were on and the motor was running. There were footprints leading away from both sides of the vehicle. While scanning the area for the occupants he heard a car door slam shut just behind him. He believes this was Chuck Sanders leaving the scene.
The grass was very tall in the ditches, so it would have been easy for someone to hide there. He reached in and turned off the windshield wipers and the ignition. At this time he had not heard about the Martindale murder. He said he told the proper authorities all of this, and believes that this information was not brought up in the trials.
He also said the idea of someone crawling across the console was highly unlikely. It is also his opinion that Stacy Martindale is the one who shot Randy Martindale.
Don Fields Deposition October 30, 1996
Don Fields was called by the prosecutor Riley Bock to testify at Stacy Martindale's trial in October 1995. Clay’s trial attorneys never knew of Mr. Fields as a potential witness. The following is the deposition taken by attorney Greg Mermelstein who represented Clay at his post conviction relief hearing.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) Did you see anything unusual at that time?
A: (Don Fields) Yes I seen a car coming towards us and sparks was coming up from it.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) When you saw the car did you see what kind of car it was at that time?
A: (Don Fields) Red Camaro.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) Did you note how may occupants were in the car?
A: (Don Fields) Looked like there was two in there to me.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) Now after you saw this did you report this information to New Madrid Law Enforcement Officials?
A: (Don Fields) The next day or two I did.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) Now did you testify to this at the Stacy Martindale trial? I think it was in Perryville
A: (Don Fields) Yes sir.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) Did you essentially testify at the trial if you recall to the same information you did here today?
A: (Don Fields) Yes sir.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) Now Richard Clay had a trial in the summer of 1995 in
A: (Don Fields) No sir.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) If you had received a subpoena to appear there would you have followed that subpoena and appeared in
A: (Don Fields) Yes sir.
Q: (Mr. Mermelstein) And would you have testified to the information you did here today?
A: (Don Fields) Yes sir.
Why would Riley Bock call Don Fields to testify that he saw two people in Stacy Martindale's red Camaro on the night Randy is murdered, but not call this same witness to testify at Clay’s trial, or even to disclose to Clay's attorneys Don Fields as a witness? At Clay’s trial, Riley Bock vehemently contested the idea that there were two people in the car.
Contradicting Theories of Who Shot Randy Martindale
At Clay’s trial in June 1995, the prosecution argued to the jury that Clay shot and killed Randy Martindale. At Stacy Martindale’s trial, the same prosecution argued that they didn't know who shot Randy Martindale but that Stacy Martindale could be the shooter.
If Stacy Martindale is the shooter, Rick Clay must be innocent and Riley Bock and Kenny Hulshoff have once again put an innocent man on
However, this argument made at Stacy Martindale's trial in October 1995. How were Clay and his attorneys expected to know that in fact the State would change their theory four months later as to who shot Randy Martindale?
It would seem the court erred in not responding to Clay's claim and by procedurally barring him from ever raising this claim again.
(Page 638 of Stacy's trial transcript Kenny Hulshoff explains their new theory to the court.)
A: (Kenny Hulshoff) The officers did everything that they could to adequately investigate this case and we are still yet unclear, the State, since we don't have an eyewitness, don't know who pulled the trigger in that bedroom, there was a glove present. The jury may talk and speculate, the jury may find that the shooter, whether it was this defendant [Stacy Martindale] or whether it was Richard Clay that the shooter wore a glove, so I mean the point is you know a gunshot residue test was taken the chemist can testify about elevated levels that would indicate that this defendant [Stacy Martindale] could have handled a gun recently
(Page 639 of Stacy Martindale's trial transcript as her attorney responds to Mr. Hulshoff.)
A: (Mr. Green) Then for the record I want to point out that Mr. Hulshoff said that she may be the shooter. I find that for the first time surprisingly that the State has is going to take the position that Stacy Martindale is the shooter when they already tried Richard Clay and their position then was that Richard Clay was the shooter of Mr. Martindale.
Mike Frederick's Affidavit
That I testified for the State at the trial of State of
Kenny Hayden Affidavit October 10, 1996
When Rick Clay and I went out to the Parking lot of J.D.'s on the night of May 19, 1994 we both used some methamphetamine in the parking lot. I provided the methamphetamine to use in the parking lot.
On the night of May 19, 1994 while at J.D.'s Clay told me that he had to leave and run down the street to pick something up. When he told me this he was referring to having to go pick up some drugs. I reported this to officer Hinesly when he interviewed me on May 21, 1994 Rick had told me that he was going to pick up some crank.
Chuck Sander's July 18th, 1994 interview
After Sanders was initially charged and arrested for Randy Martindale's murder in early July 1994, he was taken to be held in the Mississippi County Jail in
In the 104 page July 18 interview, Sgt Hinesly refers to another Monday July 11th interview on page 6. In fact, Sgt Hinesly and Riley Bock both refer to the mysterious July 11th interview a total of thirteen times. Bock and Sgt Hinesly both tell Chuck "You're lying to us, you lied Monday and you're lying today."
To this day Riley Bock denies that the Monday July 11th 1994 interview exists. Regardless, Clay’s attorney had the legal right to know what Bock and Hinesly claim Sanders was lying about in order to cross examine Sanders and his truthfulness during Clay’s trial. What was Chuck lying about and why does Riley Bock not want Clay and his attorney to know? On July 28, 1994, Corporal A.V. Riehl, Sgt. Hinesly, and Corporal Riehl re-interviewed Sanders at the Mississippi County Jail in
Chuck Sander's July 28, 1994 Interview
Paragraph 2 -- states that they are giving Chuck a chance to recall any facts.
Paragraph 3 -- states that they review the facts with Chuck and inform him of a jail house informant who has written a statement against Sanders and Clay and that the statement was on file at the New Madrid County Jail.
Paragraph 4 -- Chuck reveals that he talked with Stacy on the evening of May 19, 1994 on Radio Shack parking lot and she told him "that this would be a good opportunity to do it". Chuck says he told her that "he didn't want anything to do with her".
Paragraph 5 -- when asked to explain what the good opportunity was interpreted as, Chuck said he understood it as "get rid of Randy" but she never mentioned killing Randy, but he knew that's what she was referring to because of previous conversations.
Paragraph 6 -- Chuck said that some months ago Stacy asked him to help her get rid of Randy, Chuck said his reply was "I’ll think about it". Chuck went on to say that he never intended to help her in any way but thought that she would just forget about the whole idea after awhile.
Paragraph 7 -- Chuck did not provide any other information that was new to the investigation of Randy's murder. He did say that he intended to take the stand and testify to what he has told the police. When asked to provide a written statement he elected to seek the advice of counsel before giving a written statement.
Letter from Riley Bock's Office to Chuck Sander's lawyer
Letter to Nancy McKerrow Lead Trial Counsel for Chuck Sanders August 30, 1994
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
NEW
August 30, 1994
Ms. Nancy McKerrow
Lead Trial Counsel
Central Capital Litigation Division
Office of State Public Defender
3402 Buttonwood
Re: State of
Case No. CR294-420F
Dear Nancy:
I enclose here with the copy of the officer's report related to the recovery of the shells following our interview with your client. The information given by your client the morning after our long interview directly conflicts many of his statements and claims that afternoon. I am also enclosing copies of the interview had with Darrell Jones.
The time for your client to come clean and be of use to the State, and himself, is quickly coming to an end. I have always operated under the philosophy that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Your client is in hand. It is obvious at this point in time that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill Randy Martindale. His previous claims of withdrawal are not supported by the evidence nor by the many inconsistencies he has provided. We would be willing to make one last effort at obtaining the truth from him.
Very truly yours,
H. Riley Bock
Prosecuting Attorney
HRB/mmt
cc: Mr. Robert J. Ashen
###
Neither Clay nor his attorneys ever knew of this letter to Chuck's attorney from Riley Bock – It in itself raises a few questions.
Through Bock’s own words, we can clearly see he did not believe Sanders and "his many inconsistencies.” Therefore, what makes Sanders suddenly so credible to serve as the linchpin in the State’s case against Clay a few months later?
Again – what are these “inconsistencies” and what lies in the mind of Bock are Sanders giving as to warrant “one last effort at obtaining the truth?” Sanders never conducted any more substantive interviews after this letter.