Bride says fatal push was instinct
MISSOULA, Mont. — A federal judge has rejected a request to dismiss a murder indictment against a Montana woman accused of pushing her new husband to his death in Glacier National Park.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy rejected prosecutors' request Friday to delay the Dec. 9 trial of 22-year-old Jordan Graham.
Graham testified on Friday that she instinctively pushed him away when he grabbed her arm during an argument in Glacier National Park.
She said that an FBI agent who interviewed her about Cody Johnson's death made her uncomfortable by placing his hand on her knee.
Graham, 22, testified in U.S. District Court in Missoula in a hearing on her request to drop the murder charges filed against her in the July 7 death of the 25-year-old Johnson.
Graham and Johnson had been married for eight days when they argued over her doubts about the marriage, prosecutors said. The couple took the argument to Glacier National Park, where Johnson at one point grabbed Graham, and Graham removed his arm and pushed him in the back and off a steep cliff, according to the criminal complaint.
Graham has pleaded not guilty, and said she was only attempting to remove Johnson's arm — not push him.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Drink of the Devil’ unites formerly feuding families
- Teen girl Hernandez killed by Denver police once cited for resisting arrest
- Big Bang ‘waves’ go poof under analysis
- Large pipelines proposed to carry gas from shale formations
- Hillary Clinton’s charter jet costs scrutinized
- Chris Kyle Day declared in Texas to honor SEAL of ‘American Sniper’ movie fame
- NASA satellite to track water in soil