Molly Martens Corbett engineered a situation in her home with a view to getting her husband out of their house so she could secure custody of his two children, prosecutors have claimed.
In closing arguments in a hearing to determine the sentence that will apply to Ms Martens Corbett and her father in relation to the killing of Jason Corbett in August 2005, the prosecution maintained that the marriage was “loveless” and “a lie”.
Alan Martin, the assistant district attorney in Davidson County, North Carolina, said Ms Martens Corbett had married Limerick man Jason Corbett “in full and open contemplation of divorce” with a view to getting custody of his children from his first marriage.
The court had heard it said during the seven-day hearing that for Molly Martens, it was “all about the kids”, said Mr Martin
What US police think really happened in the run-up to Jason Corbett’s killing
Truth about why Jason Corbett died is obscured in a maelstrom of high emotion
Thomas Martens will be out of prison by the summer, predicts lawyer
Aftermath of Jason Corbett’s killing: Thomas Martens, ex-FBI, knew just what to tell police
Ms Martens last week did not contest a charge of voluntary manslaughter in relation to the killing of her husband.
Her father Thomas Martens pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter of Jason Corbett.
Mr Martin said the prosecution did not contend that there was premeditation to kill Jason Corbett.
However, he said there was evidence she wanted to create an opportunity to get her husband out of the house and then could file for emergency custody.
He said though that she needed her husband alive.
The assistant district attorney said the “clock was running out” on Molly Martens’s years-long plan to get custody of the children.
He said all Jason Corbett had to do was to take his two children back to Ireland and leave them there.
He said Ms Martens was “motivated by a refusal to let go what she wanted and that which she could not have”.
Mr Martin described Ms Martens as someone practised in the art of deception.
The US prosecutor almost broke down as he pointed to the Corbett family in the courtroom and said it would be a miracle if the sights and sounds from the night their father was killed “were not seared” into the brains of his two children.
He suggested that claims made about the circumstances surrounding the death of Margaret Corbett in 2006 were “irrelevant”.
Counsel for Ms Martens has maintained his client believed that Margaret Corbett had been murdered and the same fate could befall her.
Douglas Kingsberry, the lawyer for Ms Martens, said the evidence was Jason Corbett would get angry at night-time if his wife Molly got up to tend to their children.
He said the evidence given to the court was that he was also “prone to physical violence against Molly”.
He contended that his client had spoken to friends before her husband’s death in August 2015 about her concerns that he could have been responsible for the death of his first wife.
Health authorities in Ireland maintained that Margaret Corbett died from an asthma attack but this has been challenged by medical witnesses at the current hearing.
Mr Kingsberry said the defence was not criticising what the doctor in Ireland who carried out the autopsy said she saw, but rather the conclusions she drew from what she had observed.
He said Ms Martens believed she had to use defensive force against her husband who had attacked her on the night of his death. He said she was never the aggressor.
A central issue for the judge to determine is whether there were aggravating factors in that Mr Corbett’s children were present in the house when he was killed.
Mr Kingsberry said the evidence was that Molly Martens had tried to shield the children from abuse in the house.
Jones Byrd, counsel for Ms Martens’ father Thomas Martens, a co-defendant, said that what his client saw when he walked into the bedroom of his daughter and son-in-law after hearing a commotion was “every parent’s worst nightmare”.
He had seen his daughter being strangled by her husband and feared she could be killed before his eyes, he said.
He said that as Thomas Martens had pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter he would lose his ability to hold high level security clearances which were part of his job and his very identity.
Counsel for Mr Martens urged the court to apply extreme mitigation when considering sentences.
