Comics retailer Michael George, who was convicted in March of killing his first wife in 1990, will get a new trial.
In a decision handed down earlier today, Macomb County (Mich.) Circuit Judge James Biernat Sr. cited prosecutorial misconduct and the release of new evidence that could lead the jury to believe another person was responsible for the murder of Barbara George.
The misconduct apparently is related to the assistant prosecutor’s use of Michael George’s mug shot during closing arguments.
Barbara George was shot in the head on July 13, 1990, in the Georges’ Clinton Township comic-book store. Prosecutors contended that Michael George staged the killing to look like a robbery so he could collect money from an insurance policy and a shared estate, and start over with another woman.
George was sentenced in June 20 life in prison.
The new trial is set to begin on Dec. 2.
Related: The Detroit Free Press has more details on the new evidence
September 12th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“New evidence”? Sheesh… I honestly thought this was all over with.
My lack of legal knowledge is going to show here, but where is the burden of proof at this point? He’s already been convicted by a jury of his peers and proven guilty in the minds of the jurors. Is it like the previous trial never happened, or is it up to to George’s attorney to prove him innocent (or at least create a reasonable doubt) now that he’s been convicted previously?
I haven’t read the article yet, but I have to admit that if I’d been on that jury I’d have voted like they did. George had the motive, the means, and his philandering cast him in a most negative light. From what I saw on that “Dateline” special, the guy showed no sadness/remorse over his wife. All the defense’s talk about being framed, revenge, etc. always struck me as crap since they never had, AFIK, any ideas as to who might’ve wanted revenge on the guy or why. And there was the guy who had the phone conversation, placing him at the shop. I’m curious to know what this “new evidence” is.
But, whatever. The whole thing is just really, really sad.
Oh, and I’ve noticed that mug shot that’s accompanied all the other Michael George articles isn’t here this time. Is that the one that was involved with the misconduct? Why is it misconduct to show a mug shot at a trial?
September 12th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Huh. So I read the article… While much of the evidence against George is circumstantial, it sounds like this new evidence is also really circumstantial. Unless there’s something placing this other guy in contact with George, it seems pretty flimsy.
I wonder why George took such a large insurance policy out on his wife, yet not (or at least not nearly as large) for himself when he was the breadwinner. Actually, I don’t wonder at all. Like I said, the motive was there.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
The evidence that convicted George was circumstantial as hell.
Whether he did it or not, I found it hard to believe he could be found guilty based on what was presented by the prosecution.
I hope they either build a stronger case, or he’s acquitted.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Here is the thing the prosecution and police withheld information and didn’t follow all the leads. So there for a new trial has to be granted since they(prosecution and police) construed the evidence when in reality this evidence could very well prove that George is innocent. I live and a small podunk town that even we would have laughed this out of court.. I am baffled by how a judge could have let this go this far.
here are the facts.
One they didn’t check his alibi, two they had 7 other leads they never investigated, three no murder weapon, four no witnesses, five no forensic eveidence, 6 the word of a man from 17yrs ago who could get the time right about when he called now that they are prosecuting the case he finally remembers correctly they have no phone records to prove that the time he actually called., 7 they didn’t sequester the jury. (This is my biggest problem on a murder case you don’t let them go home for the weekend you keep them where they can’t be contacted by the any of the family members or anyone else to sway them).,
Let me clearify, there was no eye witnesses that can place Mike George at the scene, they however, have eye witnesses that there was another person there that wasn’t mike george at the scene and never ever checked it out.
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:34 am
I enjoy what you guys are usually up too. Such clever work and exposure! Keep up the excellent works guys I’ve added you guys to my blogroll.
June 1st, 2011 at 5:02 am
You made good strategies here. I carried out a explore on the subject and learnt practically all peoples can agree with your weblog. One of the a lot more extraordinary methods to consider will be definetely to change the roof of your room.