This is a case of a person (Anthony Broom) returning to his motel room to find his friend severely wounded from a gunshot wound to her head and no one in the room with her. Simply a dying body, a pool of blood and the revolver lying on the floor. Having returned from Vietnam, Broom (the defendant in this case) slept with a cocked and loaded gun under his pillow. After walking back from the vending machine area, Broom found her lying on the bed bleeding from the gunshot wound and did everything he could to attempt to save her life but to no avail. It is very likely that Ms. Martz accidentally placed her hand under the pillow and fired the weapon after picking it up where it was already cocked.  

Due to Detective Woodard’s lies, her falsified reports, and a personal dislike of Broom, she charged him with First Degree Murder. The facts of this case indicate otherwise.  


The evidence of the case clearly shows the cause of death to be that of a gunshot wound to the head. It is the manner of death (how that gunshot wound occurred), however, that has been obscured. That is due to the fact that expert witness and state pathologist, Dr. Youngs, was not provided all the necessary, pertinent and truthful information to make his conclusion. For example, the first-responding officers that arrived at the motel had surmised suicide. (Click to see trial testimony by the Officer). Evidence furnished to him was false and/or tainted, as seen in the “Death Investigation Report” click to read this report. That report will be shown to have been falsified. The falsified statements and staged photographic evidence were submitted so as to remove the possibility of any type of self-inflicted injury and to give the look of a homicide. In actuality, Broom had no idea what had transpired while he was out of the motel room, having returned from the vending machine area to find his friend on the bed bleeding from a gunshot injury to her head. Broom immediately called the front desk and asked that they call an ambulance and police. Click here to read Det. Woodard’s deposition.  

The record shows that Detective Woodard took over as lead detective and that she admittedly had a pre-dispositioned personal dislike to Broom. Click here to see Detective Woodard’s testimony. Detective Woodard had no idea what occurred in that motel room prior to her arrival. Click here to see her testimony. Detective Woodard did not know who was or was not in the motel room just prior to or at the time of the tragedy. Nonetheless, she had already made up her mind that it was the result of a homicide. Click here to see that testimony-6. 


The tainted and non-factual “Death Investigation Report” was submitted with the body by Detective Woodard when the deceased was sent to the morgue. The date/time listed on that report by Detective Woodard was noted as 6/24/81 at 4:34 a.m. and co-submitted by Detective Henry. The report stated, in pertinent part: “According to investigator the victim and suspect were in Rm #539, just prior to shooting…”

Detective Woodard’s report was unsubstantiated by any evidence that the victim and the suspect were in Room #539 “just prior to” the shooting. Detective Woodard did not arrive at the motel until 4:30 – 4:35 a.m. Click here to see her testimony as to her time of arrival & This. Her time of arrival was approximately one-half (1/2) hour AFTER the first-responding officers had arrived but refused to enter the motel room until Broom was forced by them to pick the gun from the floor and toss it on the sofa so that they felt that they had safe entry. Rather than photograph the gun back in its original location on the floor, Detective Woodard had the officer who retrieved the gun from the sofa place it back on the sofa to be photographed for evidence of its location in the room. Click here to see trial testimony. The injured body was moved down from the headboard of the bed so that the EMT technicians could administer first aid, and it was that relocated position (not the original) that photographs of the body were taken. The entire crime scene had been compromised by the time Detective Woodard arrived. Her evidence photos of the gun located on the sofa (and not on the floor where it had fallen from the hand of the deceased) were used to negate any form/type of self-inflicted injury by having the gun photographed 4-5 feet from the bed. 

Two large blood spots on the bed prove that the victim was near the headboard when the gun discharged. That was the position of the body when the first-responding officers arrived and entered the motel room. There was no way for anyone to have fired the fatal shot from behind her position, unless the shot came from the adjacent motel room. There were no bullet holes found in the wall of the motel room. By photographing the body in its altered position, Det. Woodard allowed for the possibility that someone could have been behind the victim to commit a homicide. The blood spot evidence, however, indicates otherwise. 

The first-responding officers (Officers Dennis, Thomas and Quinn) were the only law enforcement personnel to view and investigate the scene in its un-compromised condition and concluded that the incident had been a suicide. Click here to see trial testimony by these officers.  

As for Detective Henry, whose name and signature also appear on the report, he was in no position either to state who was or was not in Room #539 “just prior to shooting,” where he did not arrive on the scene until 4:58 a.m., approximately thirty (30) minutes after Detective Woodard and approximately forty-five (45) minutes after the first-responding officers had arrived. Click here to view the supporting trial testimony.

One can easily see that Detective Woodard’s “Death Investigation Report” was worded specifically to influence the medical examiner’s autopsy finding, especially where her statement is contrary to the statements made by the people staying in the adjacent motel room. Click here to view the statements of Mr. Kumar Singh and Mrs. Barbara Singh. The medical examiner, using the Death Investigation Report, concluded that the victim’s death was the result of a suicide, a Homicide or some sort of bizarre accident. Absent that falsified statement by Det. Woodard the “the victim and suspect were in Rm. #539, just prior to shooting…” there was/is absolutely no evidence by which to conclude “homicide” in the medical examiner’s report. 


It must be noted here that there was NO stippling, tattooing, or gunshot residue (GSR) found on the suspect’s (Broom’s) hands or body. See trial testimony-13.

The state pathologist, Dr. Youngs, presented two (2) theories regarding the stippling/tattooing found on the body of the decedent. The untainted evidence clearly indicates that the manner of death was suicide or some type of bizarre accident – but NOT a homicide. Dr. Youngs’ theories only show some type of self-inflicted fatal wound when all false and tainted evidence has been removed. The two (2) theories put forth by Dr. Youngs at trial are shown below: 
         2        had the hand been on the side
3        of the head, like this (indicates) this is when the gun was
4discharged, it is possible that some of the gun powder residue
5would have landed on top of the hand and produced the 
6stippling effect that we saw. Also in the discharge of some
7revolvers, gun powder may be discharged around the cylinder of
8the revolver onto the hand. If the individual holding the 
9revolver discharged it, they may get gun powder residue of this
10type on the back of the hand. (Tr. P133, L6-10).

Doctor Youngs’ first theory was that her hand had possibly been, in an attempt to defend herself, interposed between the barrel of the gun and her skin. That theory could account for the GSR found on her hand; however, stippling/tattooing would have been found on the hand – NOT on her head. The uninterrupted round zone of stippling found around the entrance wound, as testified to by Dr. Youngs, actually eliminates that first theory. The decedent’s hand would have blocked, at least partially, some of the stippling. That theory would not have allowed the “uninterrupted” zone of stippling/tattooing around the entrance wound, as clearly shown by the evidence.  

With Dr. Youngs’ first theory disproven by his very own findings, it can be concluded that the victim was not defending herself from the gunshot. Click here to see the trial testimony of Dr. Youngs Theories. His second theory was that the tattooing around the entrance wound was caused by the revolver’s cylinder flare, which sent stippling into the back of the index and middle fingers of the left hand as the bullet discharged from the gun while she was holding it. That fact was forensically established by the stippling/tattooing located on the back of the victim’s trigger finger and on the back of her left middle finger, indicating that the victim fired the fatal shot. 
Detective Stanton performed a neutron test on the victim while the body was at the motel room. He used cotton swabs to lift the gaseous residue from the skin. Click to read that trial testimony. Six (6) hours later, at the autopsy, he performed a Scotch tape test to lift the stippling which he had seen on the hand. Click here to see trial testimony & This testimony. The cotton swab that he used at the motel room, however, removed the stippling and left only the tattooing. That tattooing was still viewable, but nothing remained for testing purposes. 

Only Dr. Youngs’ second theory, therefore, remains – that it was Ms. Martz who fired the fatal shot. Gunshot residue/tattooing found on the back of her fingers clearly indicate that she was the one holding the gun when it discharged. 


Detective Woodard’s fabricated and falsified statements thus became the lynchpin for the homicide findings in Dr. Youngs’ report. Without it, the only reasonable conclusion by the medical examiner would have been suicide or some bizarre self-inflicted accident, neither of which would have led to a charge of murder against Broom. Unequivocally, the injury was a self-inflicted gunshot wound.


If you happen to be a pathologist or know one who can find enough here to provide a written finding of some type of a self-inflicted wound and not homicide, it would be greatly appreciated that you contact us using the text box below. It would assist in obtaining a new hearing to set an innocent man free after 34 years of a wrongful conviction. Thank you very much for your help and comments. 

Return to TOP

Return to HOME