6-1-09 Attorneys for Doug's step-daughter file civil lawsuit at end of May seeking money (for those wondering if this trial was about justice or money, you can stop wondering).
5-19-09 Faylene's sister pressed for investigation based on a dream in which her dead sister appeared to her. New Times article.
4-7-09 Phoenix New Times article illuminates hate for Doug Grant that led to guilty verdict. Read.
4-7-09 24-year law enforcement veteran disgusted with jury that would convict a person in a trial in which "nothing was proven." Read.
3-31-09 Jury interview: Reporters repeatedly ask what evidence there was. Jury member actually admits there was none. Watch video.
3-25-09 Mike Watkiss with Channel 3 News discusses the lack of evidence and the "compromise" verdict of manslaughter. Watch video.
3-4-09 Judge Mahoney severly limits Doug's time on the stand, so defense decides Doug will not take the stand at all. Read.
3-2-09 Prosecutor requests that other options, including Assisted Suicide, be given to the jury in an obvious acknowledgment that his Murder 1 fabrication hasn't been proven. Judge agrees and instructs jury to consider second-degree and manslaughter. New Times.
2-24-09 Judge tells jurors not to share 'incident' with fellow jurors, then turns around and lets prosecutor do it. Media report.
2-20-09 Every defense witness has been badgered by the prosecutor, without exception. Read story | Read earlier media report.
2-11-09 Lead investigator in the Grant case, Detective Sy Ray, also got his facts wrong in a 2006 case, and was responsible for a raid that culminated in the teargassing of an innocent elderly man and the destruction of his home. E.V. Tribune.
2-2-09 After giving the prosecution over 3 months to present their case, judge rules defense has only 2 weeks. Read story.
1-28-09 In an incredible turn of events, the court rules that the defense cannot tell the jury that certain witnesses testifying against Doug had attempted a hostile takeover of Doug's company in 2002. Read commentary.
1-27-09 Medical examiner contradicts prosecution: "I have no evidence to support this being a homicide." New Times article.
12-10-08 Prosecution's own witness, Physician Assistant Chad White, contradicts prosecutor and testifies that it was he who decided Faylene needed a prescription for Ambien, not Doug. New Times article.

"Anybody who understands the justice system knows innocent people are convicted every day." --Florida Supreme Court Justice, Gerald Kogun (Ret.)

"In this country the presumption of innocence is dead, dead, dead." --John Grisham

Introduction...

This website is put together using court documents and media articles that are available to anyone in the public community. The public court documents should be of most interest to anyone really interested in the truth regarding the Doug Grant murder trial. These documents can be retrieved by asking for the motions or the exhibits to the motions through the Maricopa County Justice System in Phoenix Arizona. Many of them can also be viewed online at the link provided in the left side bar of this website.

My intent with this website is to counter the negative and dishonest claims being made about Doug Grant, who is the owner of Optimal Health Systems, a whole food nutrition company located in Pima Arizona. I am a proud employee of Optimal Health Systems, and since I personally give no credence to people who make untruthful, mean-spirited claims about this case online-- then conceal their identity behind a fictitious or "online" name--I am happy to ascribe my name as the originator of this site and its contents.

Doug’s late wife passed away in September of 2001. The immediate investigation proved that her death was an accident. This is clearly shown by the police reports and the statements made by the lead detective and the medical examiner at that time. (Later the examiner would testify that he changed his determination from accidental to "indeterminate" at the encouragement of police investigators.)

Approximately six months after the death of Doug's wife, Faylene, family members of Faylene encouraged the Gilbert, Arizona Police Department to pursue the accident as "suspicious" in nature. Not coincidentally, this push for an investigation occurred right after the five members of Faylene's family—who had continued to work at Doug Grant's business—attempted, and failed, a hostile take over of Doug’s business.

The investigation went nowhere for more than three years for the obvious reason that there was no evidence. Then, in July 2005, Doug was arrested. Ostensibly, the justification for the case to now move forward was new testimony from a key witness. Upon investigation by Doug's defense team, it was discovered that this new "witness"—an old friend who Doug had helped out financially—had blackmailed the family for $10,000 cash in exchange for his “testimony.” Following that he was subjected to extortion himself by way of being threatened with arrest if he did not give testimony favorable to the prosecution!

All of this was proven by the defense—along with documenting previous history of extortion by the “witness.” The witness has now recanted his claims, and has testified about the illegal tactics of the lead detective. I have viewed the video myself where this witness recants his testimony; however, I am not permitted to put it on this site. (Ed.note: Since this "recanting" by the star witness is available in the public records, and since the witness has now disappeared and was not even mentioned in the prosecutor's opening statement, it would be nice if the media would see fit to actually follow-up on this egregious bit of dishonesty.)

Over the year following, Doug and his attorney worked to show that allegations made by the prosecution were either totally false, given by a witness testifying under duress, or were designed to totally misrepresent the situation (for example, telling the grand jury that the deceased was not suicidal when, in fact, dozens of her letters and diary entries clearly showed otherwise).

They succeeded in finally having the original case "remanded" back to another grand jury.

Now, with hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money already wasted in a case that was built around a now-discredited star witness, the prosecution had a problem. The state subsequently kicked the original prosecutor off the case and assigned Juan Martinez—considered by some to be the state’s top prosecutor— to the case.

Doug was again indicted and over the course of seven years since the death of Faylene, this case is wrongfully going to trial.

Doug Grant and his family have talked very little to the media about the case. This is for two reasons: the protection and sanctity of Doug’s children and their exposure, and at the recommendation of Doug's attorney. On the other hand, the family of Doug’s deceased wife have ambitiously sought media attention—and have received it dozens of times—over the course of this sad event.

It is an inarguable fact that media attention given to distaught family members—especially ones with an axe to grind—is going to be emotional and one-sided. No mention is ever made about the heart-wrenching letters written by the deceased which clearly demonstrate that she had thoughts of suicide and wrote about it extensively. (I have read many of these letters myself.) No mention is made of the weekly flowers that Doug bought for his wife, or the expensive family vactions they took together. And, most importantly, no mention is ever made that members of Faylene Grant's family attempted to take control of Doug's business six months after her death. One can only hope that at some point someone in the media will investigate and report on this very-relevant chapter of this sad story.

To ensure this one-sided exposure does not affect OHS and its clientele negatively, I have created this website to present some of the "forgotten" facts. As the Managing Director for OHS, I felt it was important that the truth about what happened to Doug’s wife be told. When I say “truth” I am referring to what is known to us through the public records and motions in this case—sources that frequently give information different than what the prosecution and one-minute news blurbs provide.

It is important for this information to be available so that the general public, and thousands of health professionals and other customers using our products, can base their decision on the strength and effectiveness of our products, not biased media attention on a wrongfully-prosecuted accidental death. Most of our formulas have been in use for 10 to 15 years and have benefited tens of thousands of people.I believe that says a lot about the mission of this company.

It is difficult to not think that Doug Grant is attacked personally to try to cause harm to Optimal Health Systems. Because the OHS teachings and products are so effective and credible, the competition—and other people wanting to hurt anything associated with Doug—attack him hoping it will directly affect this great company. This is sad considering that Otpimal Health Systems is much more than just Doug Grant... it is a team of 20 people, each of whom have specific skills that help the company succeed in bringing optimal health to those who desire it.

Those of us working at Optimal Health Systems firmly believe Doug will be exonerated (as long as the prosecutor doesn't succeed at keeping any additional exculpatory evidence from the jury), but the company will survive regardless. The company is firmly grounded on quality products, and a mission statement of teaching health. Thankfully the vast majority of our customers recognize this fact, and have continued their loyal support. We appreciate that, and will always be grateful.

We believe that each person should evaluate a company’s products and programs on the research, quality and effectiveness of those items, and not on false statments. This website will show the corruption in this case that has brought these false charges against Doug Grant. I will update it as the trial progresses and as new information is shown that vindicates Doug.

Russell Cox
Managing Director,
Optimal Health Systems

Some facts to consider about wrongful prosecution...

Are wrongful prosecutions rare and unusual in the United States?

Not by a long shot. According to Truth in Justice, just one of dozens of national organizations who monitor wrongful charges, prosecutions and convictions across the U.S. According to Truth in Justice, the primary reason for this is because of a culture of "winning at all costs." This means many detectives and prosecutors have an unspoken motto of, "Never let the truth stand in the way of a conviction." Why does this happen? Because prosecutors cannot advance and/or run for political office without a winning record. Likewise, police investigators do not win promotions by going to their superiors and saying, "I'm dropping this investigation because this person is clearly innocent."

According to The National Institute of Justice Report of 1996:

5% to 10% of U.S. prison populations are factually innocent of the crimes of which they are convicted. In raw numbers, that means as many as 200,000 innocent people are imprisoned today. Of those innocent people, because of the plea-bargain system, and the tactics of many police investigators, 90% of those pled guilty. Numerous non-fiction books have been written regarding this problem. One has been written by famed lawyer-turned-novelist, John Grisham, entitled The Innocent Man.

Police crime labs regularly bungle the handling of crime evidence.

Consider this: The overall error rate in crime labs is frequently as high as 63%, according to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice. How would you like for one of these labs to be handling the evidence in a case against you? (Note: It is part of the public record that evidence has been lost, thrown away, and "misplaced" repeatedly in the Grant case.)

In what ways does prosecutorial misconduct take place?

According to Truth in Justice's website, the primary ways in which prosecutor misconduct happens is:

--Poisoning the jury pool by using the media to convict suspects before trial.
--Ignoring the truth because of the "win at all costs" motto.
--Withholding exculpatory evidence.
--Knowingly presenting perjured testimony.
--Manipulate and/or misrepresent evidence pre-trial to coerce a guilty plea.
--Misrepresent evidence during closing arguments.

(Note: Except for the last item on this list, all of these have taken place in the prosecution of Doug Grant. And the only reason the last one has not yet taken place is because closing arguments are months away.)

The U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate.

Look around you and picture one in 37 people. Now imagine that those one in 37 are all criminals, because that is, in fact, what the goverment asserts.The statistic is mind-boggling: One in 37 people in the U.S. are, or have been, in prison!

As far as people currently incarcerated, the United States has less than five percent of the world's population, but it has almost one-quarter of the world's prisoners! That's 2.3 million souls. This is by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. No other country even comes close to having such a high percntage of it's population in prison. Does this mean that citizens of the U.S. are more crime-prone than countries of Europe, third-world countries, even communist countries? Or does it simply mean that we prosecute a lot of innocent people? Check out the sobering statistics in this article: U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations.

Objection nonsense...

The Arizona Republic reports that the prosecution objected over 50 times during the defense's opening statement. (I attended the opening statements myself, but gave up counting after 20.) Most of these objections were based on the prosecution's assertion that the evidence and statements were inadmissible. This tactic proves that the concept of a fully-informed jury is clearly dead, and that prosecutors typically think juries are incapable of weighing ALL the evidence. Today, juries are only spoon-fed part of the picture. Some experts say that most trials are won or lost as prosecutors and defense attorneys wrangle over what evidence the jury will hear—which explains why, in this case, the prosecution tried so hard to keep the deceased's diaries and goodbye letters from being admitted as evidence. For prosecutors with a career to enhance, it's not about truth and justice; it's about winning.

Judge rules to withhold critical witness bias from the jury...

After spending a few days attending this trial I was incredulous about the obvious bias I had observed by witnessing the court consistenly sustaining 90% of the prosecutor's objections while over-ruling on 90% of the defense's. But just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, I was present in court on January 28 when a ruling handed down by Judge Mahoney convinced me further that this trial has little, if anything, to do with truth and justice.

As usual, the jury was out of the room for this little dispensation of "justice." This is because in the current American "justice" system the judges and prosecutors believe the jury is too dumb to consider ALL the facts. (This is contrary to the system the American founding fathers envisioned, of course, but more on that later.) Anyway, with the jury safely tucked away out of earshot, the judge heard arguments from the prosecution and defense regarding whether the the jury should be told that members of Faylene Grant's family--who are testifying against Doug--had attempted a hostile take-over of Doug's business.

The defense had attempted to bring this fact out earlier in the day while witness, Randy Grant, was on the stand. The defense had assumed--as any reasonable person would--that the jury should know that five family members testifying against Doug had at one time worked at Doug's business and, in 2002, had attempted to take over the defendant's business!

A normal person might feel this is completely relevant, but the prosecutor, for obvious reasons, does not want the jury to know about it. And in Judge Mahoney the prosecutor finds a willing accomplice to keep the jury in the dark

The defense immediately moved for a mistrial, which of course was denied. Apparently, the jury will remain in the dark about the history of these witnesses--just as they reamin in the dark about the court-documented prosecutorial misconduct and the disappearing "star witness."

Note: To learn more about how the U.S. jury system was originally setup, and why the jury is supposed to weigh ALL the facts--not just what the court spoon-feeds it--please visit the Fully Informed Jury Association.

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. --FIJA.org

Judge decides defense gets only 2 weeks to present case...

On February 2 Doug's supporters watched incredulously as Judge Mahoney--with a completely straight face--ruled that the defense team will now be given only two weeks to present their case. Considering that the prosecution has bumbled along for the past three-and-a-half MONTHS this is, once again, an incredible turn of events.

No one seems to know the real reasons why this decision was made, other than the fact that Judge Mahoney just wants the trial over when it was first estimated to be (the first week of March). On thing is for certain, though: It leaves the defense with a distinct disadvantage, and, to everyone besides the judge and prosecutor, clearly demonstrates that Doug is being prevented from receiving a fair trial.

One has to wonder why, if Judge Mahoney was so concerned about the trial completion date, she let the prosecution take so long, and call so many witnesses. Ironically, the defense team had pointed out in the past that the prosecution's tactics of calling so many irrelevant witnesses was taking a long time, but Judge Mahoney didn't have a problem letting the prosecution take as long as they wanted.

Now, after more than three months of prosecutor Juan Martinez's courtroom antics, a man who has been accused of murder is forced to present his case--and call all of his supporting witnesses--in only two weeks.

There might be justice somewhere in Arizona, but it certainly isn't happening in Judge Mahoney's courtroom!

Prosecutor badgers defense witnesses relentlessly...

I would think that it strikes many people as odd that of the dozens of relatives on Doug's side of the family, none of them feel there was any foul play involved with his wife's accidental death. After all, if Doug was as evil as the prosecution claims, surely at least one or two of Doug's relatives would think he was involved--but they don't. So, with only "in-laws" in agreement with him, and no hard evidnce, the prosecutor has no choice but to be adveserial and rude to all of the family members and friends who are testifying in Doug's defense. And watching a smarmy little prosecutor with political ambition unnecessarily attack people who are simply doing their civic duty is a disgusting thing to watch.

Here are a few examples where the prosecutor badgered witnesses friendly to the defense. These attacks were all carried-out with voice raised--sometimes actually screaming--and with constant interruption of the witnesses and flailing of the arms:

--In an unjustified personal attack on the physcian assistant who was first on the scene, prosecutor, Juan Martinez accuses him of "breaking the law" because he sped over to the scene when Faylene Grant was pulled from the bathtub. (Seems unbelievable that a prosecutor would be this low, but this actually happened.) Moreover, since the witness testified that he made the decision to prescribe Ambien after talking to the deceased, not Doug, then Martinez insinuates he must be a liar.(In Martinez's version it HAD to be Doug.)

--In a sarcastic cross-examination of Doug's sister, prosecutor Martinez calls her "nosey" because she went to clean up Doug and Faylene's house after the two left for a trip to Utah. He talks over her as she tries to explain that it is normal in her church to give service to others, and suggests she is meddling.

--Prosecutor Martinez literally yells at one of Doug's cousins when he can't recall the exact details of airline flights and a wedding ceremony that took place almost eight years earlier. Martinez suggests he is lying when he can't recall Doug's height relative to his deceased wife.

--In a combative episode with Doug's current wife, prosecutor Martinez chastises her for not "contacting the authorities" regarding concerns over Faylene Grant's well-being at the time. (Apparently prosecutor Martinez has forgotten that no one in Faylene's own family thought there was enough concern to call either.)

--Prosecutor Martinez yells at Doug's brother and accuses him of "trying to intimidate the jury by pointing at them." (The 'pointing' event had actually happened two weeks earlier when Doug's brother had pointed at Detective Ray while leaning over talking quietly to the person next to him. Prosecutor Martinez knew this, of course, but uses whatever dishonest tactics he can to try and make any witness friendly to Doug look bad.) You can read a media report about this ridiculous event here.

--In an especially egregious attack on Doug's brother-in-law, in which he yelled and waved is arms around, prosecutor Martinez accuses him of being manipulative and meddling because he counseled Faylene Grant to receive marriage counseling from her church. (Apparently Juan Martinez is unaware that most churches work to keep marriages together in the majority of break-ups.)

--A sister of Hilary Grant is accused of lying about the relationship between Faylene, Hilary and Doug even though there is a letter to back up her statements. (Prosecutor Martinez had tried to keep the letter from being admitted as evidence, but in one of the few rulings in favor of Doug, the letter was allowed. Hence, Martinez is forced to resort to personal attacks on the witness.)

--A repelling/mountaineering expert who had repelled off the cliff where Faylene Grant fell is accused of breaking the law because he reported that he threw a rock off the cliff without getting permission from park rangers. (No, I'm not making this stuff up.) The expert calmly explains that it is not illegal to throw a rock off, and that he did it for his own safety (to see if a tree was below the edge of the cliff) but Martinez tries his best to demean him.

Judge Mahoney severly limits Doug's time on the stand, so defense decides Doug will not take the stand at all

As the trial entered the final stages, the defense team had a critical decision to make: Whether Doug would take the stand. Conventional wisdom typically leans towards the accused NOT testifying since it is a known equation that the accused will be badgered methodically by a prosecutor who will demand only yes and no answers, with little or no clarification allowed. In this case, though, Doug was pressing to take the stand as he was anxoius to tell his story, and wanted to counter the obfuscations and lies put forth by prosecutor Juan Martinez.

In the end the decison was essentially made by Judge Mahoney when she decided Doug and his defense attorney would only be given 4 hours of time on the stand--and then be subjected to 6.5 hours of cross-examination by prosecutor Martinez! No attorney in his right mind would advise his client to take the stand under such circumstances. And it would be especially true in this case since Judge Mahoney has clearly been biased toward the side of the prosecution through this entire case. (When a prosecutor is permitted to object 200 times a day and the judge sustains over 90% of them, it would be very difficult for Doug to "tell his side.")

Consider this: First, the prosecution was given 3.5 months to present their case, then Judge Mahoney ruled the defense would only get two weeks. Now, as the trial comes to a conclusion, Judge Mahoney rules that the defense will be given only 4 hours to get Doug on the stand! And if that's not bad enough, remember that several of the prosecution's witnesses were given 3 to 4 full DAYS on the stand. (Yes, that's 4 days for a single WITNESS for the prosecution and 4 HOURS for the defendant himself.)

In a country where we believe in justice and fair trials, you would think a person accused of murder would be entitled to more than 4 hours on the stand to tell his story (before the prosecutor begins an attack that limits testimony to yes and no answers).

COMING NEXT: Witnesses complain that they can't 'tell the whole truth' when they are forced to only answer 'yes or no.'

Back to top.