Lawyers for the Kalispell woman who murdered her husband of eight days in Glacier National Park have filed an appeal in federal court.
In a 127-page appeal filed in on Oct. 17, attorneys representing Jordan Graham argue that federal prosecutors distorted and withheld evidence in order to convince the jury that the 23-year-old woman had planned on murdering Cody Lee Johnson the night of July 7, 2013. The attorneys also argue that the government breached its plea agreement when it asked for a life sentence earlier this year.
“The government’s effort from beginning to end was nothing but a kaleidoscopic set of theories in search of evidence,” writes attorney Michael Donahoe. “Evidence the government was willing to distort and shape to suit its purposes.”
Graham and Johnson were married June 30, 2013 but soon after she started having second thoughts about their nuptials. Late on July 7, the couple was having an argument near The Loop on the Going-to-the-Sun Road when, according to Graham, in a sudden fit of rage she pushed Johnson to his death over a 300-foot cliff. Graham initially covered up the murder and said that Johnson had left their Kalispell home with “car buddies,” but four days later she led friends and family to his body. On July 16, during an interview with the FBI, Graham admitted that she had pushed her husband off the cliff.
During her murder trial in December, Graham agreed to plead guilty to second-degree murder if prosecutors dropped the charges of first-degree murder and making false statements.
Then, just two days before her sentencing on March 27, Graham attempted to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that the government – which asked for a life sentence, but nothing less than 50 years – was trying to punish her for first-degree murder rather than second-degree murder. District Judge Donald Molloy denied her request to withdraw the plea. He then sentenced Graham to 365 months in federal prison.
In the appeal that was filed in the Ninth District Court of Appeals, Graham’s attorneys say that the government changed its version of events multiple times throughout the case. According to Donahoe’s appeal, the government initially argued that Graham had “walked away” from Johnson while the two were having an argument on the cliff before running back and pushing him, even though Graham said in a partially recorded confession that she never walked away. Donahoe called the initial argument a “feckless effort to contrive adequate time for reflection to support malice/premeditation.”
Later the government increased the charges to first-degree murder and introduced another theory; that Graham had actually lured Johnson on to the cliff, blindfolded him and then pushed him off. Donahoe then writes that the government reverted back to the original version of events when it couldn’t introduce the blindfold as evidence during the trial.
“For this reason alone (the) appellant’s conviction ought to be reversed and she should be deemed eligible for retrial on manslaughter theories only,” Donahoe writes.
Federal prosecutors are now preparing a response to the appeal before the Nine District Court of Appeals can either issue a ruling or allow for oral arguments.