The Mystifying Murder Trial of Michael Magness

• Photos, reporting and writing by Joshua Logan Allen -- www.medium.com/@joshualoganallen

When I was asked to cover this trial, I was thrilled. I’ve been a journalist for more than several years now, and being that covering crime and the courts has always intrigued me the most, that is where much of my time reporting and writing has been spent. But it’s not often I get the chance to set aside the time in my freelancing schedule for the full-time, daily coverage of a jury trial for a man charged with the first-degree murder of his wife. And as common as this kind of murder seems to be, which is why I assume investigators always look into those closest to a victim after a homicide, there was something about this case that was different, something intriguing to me … something evil.

Maybe it was the defendant — the man that the jury found culpable, the man they gave a guilty verdict to. Maybe it was that throughout the trial and all the way through the sound of that verdict coming out of the mouth of the judge, Michael Magness seemed indifferent, seemed unmoved with apathy towards the rest of his life being spent in prison as a possible outcome for this trial … or that his dead wife’s family watched less than twenty feet away, hoping with the deepest of regrets that justice for their daughter would be finding her children’s father guilty of ruthlessly murdering her. Often he openly smiled and laughed in the courtroom — seemingly arrogant as he confidently engaged in chipper banter with this attorneys.

I remember thinking how awful it must have been to see the man they seemed to believe was the culprit of the crime that got them there, the one that “killed their baby girl,” openly joke with the guards that were there on his watch. As a journalist, I couldn’t say any of my feelings in the articles, so I have broken it down into four parts below, which consists of the series of articles that were published in the newspaper that hired me to cover the trial, the Okemah News Leader.

In between each part are tidbits of commentary from my perspective during the coverage of the trial, as well as my thoughts and opinions on it all, for whatever that’s worth.

This murder trial was to decide whether or not a husband was guilty of killing his wife. The motive, as far as the prosecution was concerned, had to do with money and a struggling marriage — the story of humanity. That, in itself, is not that intriguing. However, the ruthlessness of it, the defendant and his perceived attitude and my thoughts that this man planned this murder for quite some time is what made this different. I’ve covered many murders, many trials, many hearings and have sat in courtrooms all over the place. I’ve seen suspects that appeared innocent. I’ve seen suspects that were innocent, and I’ve seen suspects that needed not that word suspected as an adjective, for they were clearly the one that carried out the crime. Michael Magness, though … Michael Magness was different.

The state’s case against him was completely circumstantial. No physical evidence was presented during the trial that connected him to the crime scene, which was his own home, and only anecdotal witness testimony tied him to the murder. That is evidence, of course, but not the kind that wears a big sign with the word ‘compelling’ on it. For the jury’s sake, I know they had to have had a hard time convicting a man of murder, sending him to jail for the rest of his life, based on mainly coincidences. That’s what was going through my mind, anyway. I can’t speak for the twelve of them, but a week into the trial, I still didn’t think the state had met its burden of proof — beyond a reasonable doubt.

I realize I haven’t explained the crime at all, so let’s get to that. Instead of explaining it here and now, I am going to let the published articles do that. I’ll get back to you after the first part, pasted as it was published below.

Magness murder trial begins …

**Published first in the Okemah News Leader (click link for article at okemahnewsleader.com) — Wednesday, Oct. 31 Issue — (reprinted with permission)**

The first-degree murder trial of Michael Magness started this week with the first witnesses being called Tuesday after a grueling day of jury selection Monday.

The high-profile trial, where Magness sits accused of killing his wife, saw almost 130 jurors check-in Monday morning in the courtroom of District Judge Lawrence Parish.

The prosecution, led by Assistant District Attorneys Laura Farris and Emily Mueller, allege that Magness deliberately and with malice aforethought shot his wife, Elizabeth Magness, in the head with a 9mm handgun on the night of March 14, 2015 or early morning of March 15, resulting in her death.

Jury selection began about 9:30 a.m., which would see voir dire questioning by the prosecution and Magness’s defense team last the entire day, to the point that it seemed selection would go multiple days.

Judge Parish made it clear, however, that he was getting a jury of 12 picked before the panel would be dismissed for the day.

“I want to let everyone know,” Parish said to the courtroom full of potential jurors. “We’re getting a jury picked today … one way or another.”

That statement was made just before 4 p.m. It would take until almost 6 that evening to get it narrowed down to 12 jurors and two alternates for the case.

Selected jurors consisted of eight white men and four white women, varying rather widely in age. They were sworn in at 5:35 p.m.

Tuesday saw the immediate commencement of witness testimony, following opening statements.

Representing Magness are defense attorneys Curt Allen and Jarrod Stevenson.

The state’s first witness called was father of the victim, Sam Wilson, whose hours-long testimony was wrought with emotion as he explained his view of Magness and his daughter’s relationship, their lifestyle, problems and children.

During that testimony, Farris asked Wilson how he felt about Magness, to which he responded, “(My wife and I) were scared of him,” adding that he “exhibited what I would call controlling behavior.”

At cross examination, Stevenson rebutted that being evidence that Magness is a murderer by asking Wilson a number of questions that cast doubt on the conclusion the father had come to by getting him to admit multiple times that there could be alternate reasons for Magness’s behavior, before and after the alleged murder.

That pattern continued between Stevenson and Wilson for his answers to most of the state’s questions, though Wilson did bring up instances of circumstantial evidence that could point to Magness’s guilt.

April Crouch and her husband, Dustin, would be the state’s second and third witnesses. Both explained problems they saw in the marriage of the victim and Magness, including bouts of depression and mental health issues that eventually led both witnesses to say they encouraged Magness to end the marriage with divorce.

“Magnesses don’t get divorced,” is the response both witnesses said the defendant gave to that suggestion.

On the night of the alleged murder, Magness was staying with the Crouches. Initially and throughout the investigation, both witnesses accounted for the defendant’s whereabouts that night, saying Magness would not have been able to leave their house during the night without them realizing it.

At trial this week, that changed and both said it could be possible that he left and came back through the back door without them knowing, undermining what seemed an attempt at an alibi for Magness.

Stevenson pointed to differences in statements given by the Crouches to investigators on multiple occasions, which seemed to put into question the credibility of both witnesses.

Consider this article a limited, quick look at what was presented before press time this week. As of this writing (Tuesday evening), only one day of witness testimony has been heard, meaning the state still has more than 50 witnesses to call. It’s very early, and there will be updates throughout the trial published here.

The first article, the one I hope you just read, is skimpy on its details, I understand. I had to write that in the car in the parking lot, directly after I walked out of the courtroom that day because I was literally, though quite metaphorically, knocking on the door of the day’s deadline. It was also only covering voir dire (day one‘s jury selection for the trial) and the first day of witness testimony (day two). I had more time and more details for the next three parts, which I tried to explain in the last paragraph of the above installment and throughout each subsequent piece. Either way, you get the gist.

So … Michael Magness was accused of shooting his wife in the face and leaving her for dead before proclaiming — and still maintaining — his innocence. Furthermore, he seemed to have planned this crime, precisely and step by step, from the beginning. Clearly, I cannot prove that, but twelve jurors, unanimously, seemed to think Magness did so with malice aforethought.

Each day the courtroom was tense. I was tense. The day after that first article was published, the family sat in the courtroom, passing amongst themselves the newspaper and eyeing me after each one read it. I couldn’t get a read on whether or not they were looking at me with contempt or how they felt. I know I felt uneasy. Despite that I would stand by every word I wrote as truth, it was still not pleasant to imagine bringing them anymore heartbreak because of the order in which I put the words. I have two daughters, and I couldn’t imagine losing them. I also couldn’t imagine some disheveled, unorthodox reporter describing my testimony of the events surrounding the loss of my daughter as “wrought with emotion,” further explaining that the defense did a noticeable job at cast shadows of doubt on the “conclusion the father had come to.”

Speaking of defense, it must be noted that Magness had a stellar defense team. As cold as it may seem, the battles of proving within the war of the courtroom are not about what happened, but what can be proved to have happened. The only two people that know what happened that night are Beth and Michael Magness … the latter never took the stand to tell his version of events and the former is no longer with us. It seems most likely that we will never know what really happened. The state didn’t have any physical evidence, and the defense did a really good job of casting doubt on every one of the prosecutions circumstantial claims. In my opinion, they did not prove that Magness was the murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense gave reason to doubt every claim.

There does come a point, however, regardless of how non-compelling circumstantial evidence is, that a mountain of it becomes quite compelling. I mean, come on, you can’t be at every house that burns down and not be the arsonist. But, then again, I guess you could, but it doesn’t seem likely, and that’s the point. When you have witness after witness — the state having upwards of fifteen or twenty or so witnesses — testifying to odd statements made by Magness before and after the crime, as well as peculiar behavior surrounding it, there aren’t many other outcomes that make sense other than he being the triggerman.

What makes this crime and trial ‘mystifying’ to me, what makes me describe it as having ‘intriguing ruthlessness,’ is that I believe with everything in me that Magness planned it to be this way, knowing the ins and outs of criminal investigations and what it would take to avoid ‘smoking gun’ type physical evidence.

I’ll leave it there for now. Continue reading, and I’ll be back after part two. We will now get into much more detail of the homicide and breakdowns of witness testimony and counsel questioning. From here on out, in each piece, I tried to — striving for my very best in unbiased objectivity — to put the reader in the courtroom, telling of the trial as it happened.

Reporting from Courtroom: State continues presenting its case against Magness. Here is a breakdown of the trial so far …

**Published first in the Okemah News Leader (click link for article at okemahnewsleader.com) — Wednesday, Nov. 7 Issue — (reprinted with permission)**

A long day of jury selection and tense, emotional first day of witness testimony was followed by days of state’s witnesses who continued to put bricks in the wall of circumstantial evidence being built around Michael Magness in his first-degree murder trial where he sits accused of shooting his wife, Elizabeth, to death in March 2015.

Circumstantial evidence is not typically considered the most compelling, compared to the likes of physical, forensic evidence or eye-witness testimony. This case, however, considering what has been heard thus far, has seen the prosecution present witness after witness that testify to instances with Magness or statements he has made that they say — circumstantially — point to his involvement in the murder.

The state’s theory, in a nutshell: During the late-night hours of March 14–15, 2015, Beth Magness was shot and killed at her home on 4th Street in Okemah. She was shot one time on the left side of the face, near her eye. She was alone in the house prior to the shooting. Earlier that day (March 14), Magness had left Beth at the house, while he and their two young children went to the home of longtime friend, Dustin Crouch, near the Welty area, to stay over that night.

The reason for staying there that night was because Magness said Beth needed to “clean the house,” according to testimony Tuesday by Crouch, and his wife, April.

Their testimony also suggested it not to be out of the ordinary for Magness and his two sons to spend time at the Crouch’s without Beth.

The prosecution then claims Magness, at some point after 1 a.m. and before around 4 a.m., sneaked out of the Crouch’s home, made the approximately 20-minute drive to his home in Okemah, entered the house armed with a 9mm handgun and shot and killed Beth before driving back to the Crouch’s house and re-entering undetected.

Dustin and April Crouch both testified early in the trial that they went to sleep sometime around or before 1 a.m. They both said Magness was at their home at that time. April Crouch testified that the next time she saw Magness was about 3:30 or 4 a.m. when she awoke to his youngest son crying. She said they spoke in the kitchen at that time, and she didn’t notice anything odd.

The Crouches both originally told investigators in the days after the murder and testified at the preliminary hearing that it would not be possible for Magness to have left their home while they were sleeping without them knowing. Now, both of them have changed that, and from the stand in this trial said it would have been possible for Magness to leave and return in the middle of the night and them not know.

As for motive, the prosecution continues to bring forward witness testimony that reveal financial strife and Magness as dissatisfied in the marriage. Both Dustin and April Crouch testified to Magness telling them that he and Beth rarely had sex and that she was depressed, “emotionally shut down,” and often locked herself in her room.

State witness, Kelli Crouch, daughter of Dustin and April Crouch and who lived in the Magness home in Okemah for several months, testified to Beth showing “typical signs of depression.” Magness’ defense countered that by reminding her that she had told the lead investigator on the case that the Magnesses had a “loving marriage” and that Magness “had to love Beth or he would have probably left her a long time ago.”

In the year or so before Beth’s murder, Magness had leased and was running the K-Bar Restaurant in Okemah. Kelli Crouch, who was 16 at the time, was an employee there. She said Thursday that she looked at Magness “like an uncle.”

But a couple witnesses from the stand said their relationship was odd, testifying to seeing Magness giving Kelli Crouch “back rubs” in the office of the restaurant on several different occasions.

Farris asked the young girl Thursday if Michael had ever indicated that he would pursue a sexual relationship with her if she would, to which she said, “Yes.”

Notwithstanding, Magness’ defense team, attorneys Jarrod Stevenson and Curt Allen, have consistently challenged the state’s witnesses, attempting to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case — most often trying to find contradictions in statements made before the court in this trial and transcripts from prior court hearings or interviews with law enforcement.

Back and forth the prosecution and defense go, while the jury sits in silence as they evaluate the evidence presented, and the family members of the victim watch the details displayed with heavy emotion as they are forced to re-live what were probably some of the darkest hours they’ve faced, losing a loved-one in such a brutal way.

As for the defendant, sitting accused of premeditating and carrying out the murder of his wife, Magness can be seen frequently smiling and even laughing in the courtroom, occasionally joking with the deputies on his watch when the court recesses.

On the second day of witness testimony, the state continued laying out its case, calling witnesses to the stand that presented — albeit rather circumstantial — testimony surrounding the night of Beth’s murder and the relationship between her and Magness.

Kaye Coale, a resident of the same neighborhood in which the Magnesses lived at that time, testified to hearing what she said “sounded like a gunshot” around 2 a.m. the night Beth was killed.

Another neighbor, Rhonda Hill, who said she had returned home from the casino around 1:30 a.m. March 15, testified to seeing an odd vehicle with its lights off backing into the driveway of an abandoned house next door to her shortly after she got home. She said the vehicle was a “dark blue or black, four-door car” that she had not seen before.

Hill said when the car parked, the dome light came on and allowed her to make out a white male in the driver’s seat and no one else in the car.

Farris asked Hill what the man looked like, to which she responded, “All I could tell is that he was kind of bald here (pointing to the front side of the top of her head, above the forehead), and he was kind of pudgy … not skinny and not fat, but, you know, kind of just pudgy.”

Farris then asked about the height and weight of the man. Hill guessed around 5’6” or 5’7”. The ADA reminded her that she originally reported around 5’10”. The witness put his weight at 240 to 250 lbs.

The man left the parked car and began walking down the “middle of the road,” Hill said, before he disappeared in the darkness of an alley between two houses.

“Did you ever see him again (that night),” Farris asked?

“No,” Hill said.

“Did you check to see if the car was still there,” Farris asked?

“About 15 or 20 minutes later, I looked out, and it was gone,” the witness responded.

Asked if the man looked as if he was just wondering around or if he knew where he was going, Hill answered that it “looked like he knew where he was going.”

Hill said she was not able to identify anyone in the courtroom as the man she saw that night.

The defense’s cross-examination of Hill attempted to cast doubt on what she thought she saw. Defense attorney Allen first brought up contradictions between the details she’d just testified to and what she had originally told investigators, such as initially reporting the unknown man’s weight to be 230 lbs and that she may have gotten home as late as 2 a.m.

The state then called Steve Dominy to the stand. Dominy was the Magnesses pastor when they were regular members of University Baptist Church in Shawnee. He recalled how dedicated Beth was to the church and said she often attended with the children but without Magness.

He testified to getting a phone call from the defendant about 3:30 p.m. on March 15, 2015, shortly after Beth’s body was discovered, and after hearing of her death, made the trip to visit Magness.

According to Dominy, Magness made a comment to him at that time that seemed peculiar. The comment was something to the effect of, “My biggest fear is to get accused of something I didn’t do.” Dominy said he thought it was odd because it didn’t seem like a comment a grieving husband would make on the day he found his wife shot to death.

Throughout this trial, many comments like that have been brought up, such as Magness telling Beth’s father, Sam Wilson, according to his testimony Tuesday, that he thought they may could do an open-casket funeral because “a 9mm leaves a small entry wound.”

Wilson said he made this comment to him before it had been revealed what kind of weapon had been used. He also said Magness backtracked some and said he didn’t “actually know if it was a 9mm or not.”

Magness also told Wilson that “they always suspect the husband” when his car was confiscated by authorities as part of their investigation. And another “red flag” for Beth’s father was the “shrug” he said Magness greeted him with when he got to Okemah from their home in Richardson, Tex., which he said seemed “insensitive.”

Stevenson questioned whether or not he knew that Magness hadn’t been approached by authorities at the time he made these comments, implying it was possible that it had been revealed to Magness that a 9mm had been used and that he was being looked at as a suspect.

A later witness, Kim Simmons, who it was revealed Magness had an affair with shortly before he and Beth moved back to Okemah from Wisconsin in 2011, said Magness told her he had “premeditated several ways to murder his wife and son (prior to the birth of his second son) and get away with it.”

She said Magness told her that he could “get away with anything he wanted in Okemah because people in this town are stupid.”

She also testified to Beth being depressed and said that she lived with Beth and Magness in a duplex in Wisconsin for some months before they moved back to Okemah. While living with them, she said she developed a “crush” on Magness, which she revealed to him.

Simmons said she and Magness discussed being in a relationship together with Beth, but that she had never talked to her about it — only Magness had, telling her not to mention it to Beth. Simmons said she developed what was a “good friendship with Michael and a decent friendship with Beth.”

On the stand at trial, Simmons talked differently of that “friendship” with Magness, saying she realized now that he “had full control of her emotions” and had “emotionally groomed her to be jealous of Beth.” This she called “gaslighting.”

Simmons told investigators early on that Magness, referring to his comment about murdering his wife and son, was the type of person that “absolutely would” do something like that.

Defense attorney Allen pushed Simmons hard on the fact that, given she had said Magness was the type of person that could hurt his wife and son, she didn’t tell authorities or Beth that there could be danger.

Allen also brought it to the attention of the jury that Simmons had not told investigators nor testified in the preliminary hearing anything about the “get away with anything … because people in this town are stupid” comment. The first time she had said that on the record was Thursday at the trial.

Thus far, no physical evidence has been connected to Magness from the scene of the crime or otherwise. Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Crime Scene Investigator Janell Dagett took the stand to explain to the jury her process and findings on March 15, 2015 when she arrived at the Magness home.

She said she worked the outside of the house first, taking pictures of the perimeter and cars parked in the driveway before going inside the home. She said the house didn’t show signs of a struggle, nor did she find any signs of forced-entry.

ADA Farris went through each of the almost two dozen photos Daggett had taken with her on the stand. When the investigator got to the area of Beth’s body she found and photographed one spent 9mm shell casing a few feet from the feet of the victim, identifying the caliber of the murder weapon used.

It should be noted here that two witnesses, Brittany Burden and Kaylee Robertson, both who had worked at the K-Bar Restaurant, testified to Magness showing them a 9mm handgun that he said was a gift to him.

At the scene, Daggett was able to identify the path of the bullet, which she said exited the victim and lodged itself in the wall in a high cabinet. This led her to her reporting that “it appeared the bullet was traveling in an upward trajectory,” which seems to indicate the shooter was below the victim when she was shot.

During Allen’s cross-examination of the witness, he asked Daggett about the “upward trajectory,” prompting her to re-explain the finding, and then pointed out that Beth was only 5’6”, according to her driver’s license.

During her investigation of the crime scene, Daggett photographed what looked like shoe prints in the muddy grass outside the home, but said she did not measure or cast the prints because there was not enough detail.

Dagget’s supervisor, OSBI Special Agent Ryan Woolley, took the stand next, explaining why those prints were not cast or measured, while also saying the prints were made by what looked like a boot of some sort.

Stevenson pushed back hard on this, saying if there was not enough detail to even measure the size of the prints, how could it be known that a boot left them or that they were left there the night before.

The defense attorney also questioned why no fingerprints were taken from the scene.

More on the trial to follow. This covers testimony through early Friday. The state will continue presenting its case against Magness tomorrow. He is also charged with arson and collecting on a fraudulent insurance claim, which will soon be discussed in an upcoming article, along with more testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution.

Now is the time to tell a little about Michael Magness, both as a member of the community and as a person based on what I saw in the courtroom and the words exchanged with him. He and his family are lifelong members of the small town of Okemah, Okla. It’s a city of almost 4,000 people. He was the type to have various endeavors going at once, none very successful. At the time of Beth’s murder and his arrest, he operated a restaurant — a community diner that specialized in the type of southern food you’re probably thinking about, like cheeseburgers, chicken-fried steak, eggs and hash browns, patty melts, etc.

It was this restaurant that the prosecution laid out as the biggest factor in Magness’ motive for murder. It was failing, losing $6,000 to $15,000 per month, according to witness testimony. There was a life insurance policy on Beth where Magness stood to gain a couple hundred thousand dollars or more should she be murdered.

He was arrested before he could collect that. The restaurant shut down and has been sitting empty ever since. The state’s secondary motive was, of course, that Magness wasn’t happy in the marriage. Witnesses came forward that testified to statements made by Magness like “She doesn’t give me sex enough … maybe once or twice a year.”

Then it was revealed that he’d had an affair about four years before the murder and told that woman that he had “premeditated several ways to kill his wife and son,” according to her testimony.

Those are hard things to ignore when considering whether or not he killed his wife, regardless of physical evidence. Though the defense did a good job of casting doubt, the state did a good job of making Michael Magness an easy man to hate.

Reporting from the Courtroom: State wrapping up case against Magness, calls ballistics, gunshot residue, DNA specialists to testify

**Published first in the Okemah News Leader (click link for article at okemahnewsleader.com) — Wednesday, Nov. 7 Issue — (reprinted with permission)**

The first-degree murder trial of Michael Magness — after four straight days of state witness testimony — continued into its second week Monday, November 5.

With witnesses taking the stand that have recalled events leading up to the homicide and investigators and specialists who have testified to findings or analysis after the murder, the prosecution still rests heavily on a circumstantial case, with no physical evidence yet to connect Magness to the crime.

No physical evidence does not equate to no evidence at all … there has been presented what could be called a mound of circumstantial evidence that the prosecution claims paints a picture of marital issues and financial strife leading to murder.

It was revealed Monday, during Titsworth’s testimony that he discovered a family life insurance policy that had been taken out by Magness, which made him the beneficiary of $250,000 upon Beth’s death.

Magness’ wife, Elizabeth, known by family and friends as Beth, was found deceased with one gunshot wound to the left side of her face on March 15, 2015. She was found by Magness, who the prosecution alleges killed her sometime in the night before (March 14, 2015).

Magness and their two children had stayed the night with longtime friends, Dustin and April Crouch, on the night of March 14, leaving Beth at home alone. The prosecution claims Magness, sometime between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m., left the Crouch’s undetected, drove the almost 20 minute drive to his home in Okemah, shot and killed his wife and returned to the Crouch’s.

The defense will argue that Magness did not leave the Crouch’s that night and that an unknown intruder entered the Magness home in Okemah to steal the guns inside when Beth unintentionally walked in and was shot as a result.

The prosecution pointed out, by way of testimony by OSBI Crime Scene Investigator Janell Daggett that the house showed no signs of forced-entry. The gun cabinet in one of the closets of the home did show signs of being broken into, which was locked with a combination lock.

The lock was still engaged, but the hasp or hinge mechanism was missing one of the two pins that held it together, allowing the cabinet to be opened. All the guns, save for one rifle that was held together by electrical tape, were missing, according to testimony from investigators.

Earlier in the trial, Dustin Crouch gave testimony about the pin that was missing from the hasp, in which he said had been missing for some time — replaced by a thick piece of wire that he had fashioned into a ‘C’ shape. Crouch had put the hasp on the cabinet originally, and only his fingerprint was found on it, according to testimony Monday by OSBI Latent Evidence Examiner Shana Wilson, which stands as the only print found or examined in this case.

Magness told lead investigator Kurt Titsworth in a videoed interview — played for the jury — during the investigation that there were a few rifles in the cabinet, as well as a Glock 9mm, which witnesses testified several times was usually with him. To that point, at least three witnesses (employees of K-Bar) testified to seeing Magness’ 9mm only at the restaurant.

Magness told Titsworth he just so happened to take the 9mm out of his feed truck the day before Beth’s murder and put it in the gun cabinet. According to Magness’ defense, the 9mm and its case were stolen also.

OSBI Criminalist Kathryn Crandell, ballistics specialist, took the stand Friday to testify about the bullet and firearm that killed Beth, which was a 9mm. Crandell compared the casing and projectile from the crime scene to casings and bullets recovered by Titsworth from a pasture where Magness had told him he had shot at a cow’s skull for target practice just a few days before Beth’s murder.

Crandell’s comparison showed the bullets and casings recovered from the field near the cow skull were all fired from the same weapon, a Glock 9mm, which Titsworth reiterated Monday when he took the stand. Likewise, Crandell concluded that the same type and brand of weapon that fired those casings and projectiles, based on class characteristics, matched the type of firearm that was used to shoot Beth.

“With the bullets that you identified only class characteristics, you can’t say that those bullets came from the same gun,” defense attorney Curt Allen asked during cross-examination of the ballistics specialist?

“Correct,” Crandell said.

The state also called Friday OSBI Senior Criminalist Muriel McRorie, who testified to being the technician responsible for testing Magness’ clothing and hands for gunshot residue (GSR). McRorie’s first GSR kit, done on the defendant’s hands, was negative for GSR — none detected.

Another kit was done on the left and right front side of Magness’ sweat pants and another on the front of his shirt. No GSR was detected on his shirt, but trace amounts were found on the front of the defendant’s sweat pants. The testing area was from the waist to the knee.

However, the GSR detected was in such a small quantity that McRorie had to conclude that there was “no way to know” if what was found on Magness’ pants came from an actual gun.

Defense attorney Jarrod Stevenson asked McRorie if the trace amount of GSR found meant Magness had shot a gun.

“No,” McRorie responded. “(The finding) is non-conclusive.”

On Monday, ADA Farris started the day by calling an OSBI DNA analyst to the stand, who attempted to find and identify blood and seminal fluids at the scene of the crime or on any of the evidence collected. The analyst tested things like Magness’ eye glasses, his sweat pants, t-shirt, his underwear, socks, fingernail clippings from Beth, hair follicles and a swab of the shell casing found at the scene.

In the three separate tests done by the analyst, no blood was found on any of the items, and only the combination lock from the gun cabinet contained any DN, which was a mixed profile. When compared to a known sample of Magness’ DNA, his profile did show up in the mixed profile from the lock, meaning he could “not be excluded” as the contributor with a 1/26 population variation, the analyst said. In other words, one out for every 26 people tested against the profile found could show up a match, as well.

This case is being heard in front of Okfuskee County District Judge Lawrence Parish, who told the Magness defense team Monday to get ready to start presenting their case sometime on Tuesday as the prosecution prepares to rest its case.

We are now getting close to the finale, to the verdict. I don’t have much to say at this point. The jury deliberated for less than four hours, and the verdict wasn’t shocking. His reaction was not shocking. As with the entire trial, Magness seemed cold and unconcerned. Even as the crime scene photos were published for the jury, allowing him to see the damage of his handiwork, he almost seemed to be smiling. It was gutwrenching.

Keep reading …

Magness found guilty

**Published first in the Okemah News Leader (click link for article at okemahnewsleader.com) — (reprinted with permission)**

The Magness trial is over. After concise closing statements by the prosecution and a passionate plea in a final argument by the defense, the jury deliberated for right around three hours Wednesday before finding Michael Magness guilty of the first-degree murder of his wife, Beth Magness, in 2015.

The case was heard in front of Okfuskee County District Judge Lawrence Parish.

After testimony that went multiple days with the case’s lead investigator, OSBI Agent Kurt Titsworth, the state lay its case to rest Tuesday, giving the defense the floor to present its theory for why Magness is believed to be innocent of the first-degree murder, which started later that day and went through Wednesday.

Titsworth made for the state’s final witness after hearing compelling testimony from Justin Scrimshire about statements Magness made over a couple lunch outings around and after the time of Beth’s murder, as well as testimony from the medical examiner and a former cook at the K-Bar restaurant, Caleb Phillips.

Scrimshire, a staffer of the Oklahoma House of Representatives at the State Capitol and childhood friend of Magness, told the jury of a lunch he and the defendant went on in the Oklahoma City about a week before Beth’s murder. The witness claimed he and Magness were discussing the K-Bar restaurant and its financial struggles when the defendant told him he had “a good feeling things were fixing to get better.”

He told of another lunch meeting with Magness, just a couple weeks after Beth’s murder on March 31, 2015, where he said Michael made reference to “Beth’s eye bulging out of her eye socket” when Magness found her body. It may have been this testimony and a couple others’ testimonies about Magness’ reference to the victim’s eye bulging out of its socket that most contributed to Magness’ conviction.

In the crime scene photographs shown to the jury earlier in the trial, Beth’s eye was not in that described condition. According to testimony by Oklahoma Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Eric Pfeifer, the shot was close enough to it that the eye would have bulged out of the socket because of the concussion of the close-range gunshot, but only for the first several minutes after the shot before returning to its normal position. This, the prosecution alleged, means the only way Magness would have seen Beth’s eye in that way is to have been the shooter.

The prosecution leaned heavily on this during closing. The defense pointed to it all as circumstantial.

Phillips, who was basically interrogated as a suspect several times shortly after the murder by Titsworth, was questioned extensively by the defense Monday, which used the testimony as a means to cast more doubt on the state’s case.

Prosecutor Emily Mueller read aloud to the jury a life insurance policy taken out on Beth by Magness that put him as beneficiary of $250,000 upon her death. It was presented as evidence for a main part of Magness’ motive in the case.

Upon the resting of the prosecution, the defense called Mary Magness, mother of the defendant, to the stand, along with Okfuskee County Jail Administrator Steve Avalos late Tuesday.

Magness’s mother testified to the defendant’s character and odd sense of humor. Avalos testified to the height, over 5’10”, and weight of Magness when he was booked into the jail shortly after Beth’s murder. The testimony lay in stark contradiction to the earlier testimony of Rhonda Hill, who was witness to seeing a man she gave a description of on the night of the crime that the prosecution used to point to Magness.

In closing, defense attorney Jarrod Stevenson said not one piece of physical evidence in the case linked Magness to the crime. Earlier, Titsworth answered the defense’s “no physical evidence” claim by saying the fact that it was Magness’ registered 9mm being the gun that killed Beth was enough physical evidence to connect Magness. The defense, however, didn’t argue that it was his gun used, but they said it was used by the thief who had stolen that gun along with the others when Beth caught them in the act and was shot with the stolen 9mm. It was not recovered along with the other guns in the case.

The defense pleaded with the jury to consider that the evidence shows Michael not ever leaving the Crouch’s on the night of Beth’s murder. Stevenson said the life insurance claim was taken out several years before Beth’s murder, was a joint-policy that covered them both of them and was taken out after they bought the house in Wisconsin so if anything happened to them their children could pay the house off.

“It wasn’t motive for murder,” Stevenson said.

In the end, circumstantial or not, the mountain of coincidences in the end was compelling beyond any reasonable doubt for the jury. All 12 were asked individually by Judge Parish, and all 12 said they believed Magness, in malice and premeditation, killed his wife. He was found guilty.

The jury suggested punishment to be life in prison without the possibility of parole. The judge set official sentencing for November 28 at 11 a.m.