SAN DIEGO, Jan. 30, 2007

Wife Guilty In Marine's Poisoning Death

Woman Convicted Of Murdering Husband To Cash In On Life Insurance Policy

  • Video Expert On Widow Verdict

    Court TV's Beth Karas speaks with Hannah Storm about the guilty verdict in the case of the widow accused of killing her husband. She says the evidence against Cynthia Sommer was mostly circumstantial.

  • Video Widow Stands Trial For Murder

    A U.S. Marine's wife, Cynthia Sommer, is on trial in San Diego for allegedly poisoning her husband. Hattie Kauffman reports.

    • Cynthia Sommer during her murder trial.

      Cynthia Sommer during her murder trial.  (CBS/The Early Show)

    • Marine Sgt. Todd Sommer

      Marine Sgt. Todd Sommer  (CBS/The Early Show)

    Previous slide Next slide
  • Interactive Crime Beat

    Statistics and specifics on crime in America.

  • Interactive FBI Crime Statistics

    Explore the latest information on U.S. crime, from acts of violence to property damage.

(AP)  A jury Tuesday convicted a woman of murdering her Marine husband with arsenic to cash in on his $250,000 life insurance policy to finance a luxurious lifestyle.

The jury also found that Cynthia Sommer, 33, committed the first-degree murder with the special circumstances of poisoning and for financial gain.

Sommer, who stared forward as the verdict was read, faces life in prison without possibility of parole because of the special circumstances. She will be formally sentenced March 23.

In the court's spectator area, her mother burst into tears at the verdict and sobbed.

Prosecutors argued that Sommer wanted a more luxurious lifestyle than she could afford on the $1,700 monthly salary Sgt. Todd Sommer brought home and saw the military life insurance policy as a way to "set herself free."

"I'm deeply disappointed," defense attorney Robert Udell said after the verdict. "I don't believe Cindy killed Todd."

Of his client, he said, "She's quite stunned."

The seven women and five women of the jury chose not to talk to reporters after the verdict.

During the trial, Udell told the jury that the defendant had lost her "knight in shining armor," and repeatedly returned to the absence of any paper trail linking Sommer to the arsenic.

With no direct evidence that Sommer was the source of the arsenic detected in her husband's liver, Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn relied heavily on circumstantial evidence of Sommer's financial debt to show that she had a motive to kill her 23-year-old husband.

Todd Sommer was in top condition when he collapsed and died at the couple's home on the Marine Corps' Miramar base in San Diego.

His death was initially ruled a heart attack. Tests of his liver later found levels of arsenic 1,020 times above normal.

Cynthia Sommer's friends and co-workers testified during the trial that she threw wild parties, got her breasts enlarged and had casual sex with multiple partners in the weeks after her husband's collapse.

Gunn asserted that the defendant was the only person with the motive and access to poison the Marine.

Todd Sommer spiked a 103-degree fever and visited an urgent care clinic on base complaining of gastrointestinal pain a week before his death on Feb. 18, 2002.

His widow testified that he had been well enough the day before to drink beer during a family trip to Knott's Berry Farm amusement park in Orange County.

Cynthia Sommer's in-laws testified that she objected when they asked her to put her husband's $250,000 death benefit in trust for herself, their baby and her three children from a previous marriage.

She cried when called to the stand Jan. 17, dabbing her eyes as she recounted her husband's final moments.

But she also said during cross-examination that she hadn't been able to envision her future with the Marine. The pair married in 1999.

She is now engaged to a former Marine she met two months after her husband's death. She was extradited last March to California from her current home in West Palm Beach, Fla.


© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 52 Comments
by teeus February 2, 2007 8:54 PM EST
"Women never pay for the actions as long as there is a man to blame, even if he's dead. The "justice" courts are becoming a joke. Try getting a fair shake (as a man) on Judge Judy."

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah. I'm not so sure you should base your indictment of the justice process in the United States on Judge Judy.

And as for the rest of your nonsense....well, nonsense.
Reply to this comment
by jabes1966 February 1, 2007 7:48 PM EST
You can't charge or convict on circumstantial evidence alone?!
Are you people nuts? They also had no physical evidence on Scott Peterson, but he's spending time in prison getting buffoo'd by a 6'5" black man named bubba.

I'm just surprised she hasn't claimed she was abused yet. Women never pay for the actions as long as there is a man to blame, even if he's dead. The "justice" courts are becoming a joke. Try getting a fair shake (as a man) on Judge Judy.
She always sides with the woman.
When the courts stop dispensing justice, then they most dispense injustice.
Reply to this comment
by feliznavidad-2009 February 1, 2007 12:15 PM EST
Poisoning is a very intimate method of murder. If not the wife, then who?
Reply to this comment
by annd2302 February 1, 2007 4:33 AM EST
jabes1966

3 xxxxx

Only "Jab" the Publish icon one time Jabes, not 3 , you Dummy
Reply to this comment
by jabes1966 February 1, 2007 12:25 AM EST
can't charge or convict on circumstantial evidence? Are you nuts? Can you spell Scott Peterson? They had no physical evidence against him! And LESS circumstantial than in this case!
flipping rtards
Reply to this comment
by jabes1966 February 1, 2007 12:25 AM EST
can't charge or convict on circumstantial evidence? Are you nuts? Can you spell Scott Peterson? They had no physical evidence against him! And LESS circumstantial than in this case!
flipping rtards
Reply to this comment
by jabes1966 February 1, 2007 12:24 AM EST
can't charge or convict on circumstantial evidence? Are you nuts? Can you spell Scott Peterson? They had no physical evidence against him! And LESS circumstantial than in this case!
flipping rtards
Reply to this comment
by avigil2 January 31, 2007 11:00 PM EST
This woman deserves the slammer for life!
Reply to this comment
by annd2302 January 31, 2007 8:24 PM EST
Posted by markie1118 at 03:27 PM: Jan 30, 2007

%u201CEveryone deals with a loss in their own way and that was her way of dealing with it as sick as some people may think. I feel sorry for this woman and especially sorry for her children. "

I feel so sorry for this young beauty. There is no way in hell she could have committed this heinous crime she was found guilty of. With her new perky self image she had so much to loose. If I was in prison, you betcha I would snuggle right up next to those two new beauties and console her for many ,many years. Those kids will be OK, they should adopt out real quick.
Reply to this comment
by annd2302 January 31, 2007 7:53 PM EST
I would like to see those "NEW" and improved boobies.
Reply to this comment
by legendary240 January 31, 2007 7:52 PM EST
She's a fine woman, fit for prison. Old Lizzie ine cellblock "Q" will surely take a likin' to them new sweater-stretchers she bought! Serves her right!
Reply to this comment
by agnim January 31, 2007 7:17 PM EST
"It's not a flaw in the justice system. If theres enough circumstantial evidence and that's all you got, then the DA will make a case.
Posted by mdc76082 at 01:51 PM : Jan 31, 2007"

LOL
Are you joking?

By its very nature, so-called 'circumstantial evidence' CAN NEVER EVER prove someone guilty 'beyond doubt', since 'circumstantial evidence' itself IMPLIES DOUBT!

So you are right; "it's not a flaw in the justice system". It is a gaping hole! LOL
And this white widow spider just happens to fall into the hole BECAUSE A MILITARY PERSONNEL DIED!

That is what 'circumstantial evidence' will do: Circumstantial evidence allows for the kangaroo courts when we find them convenient to lynch a member of the society whom we assume for whatever reason MUST be guilty.
Reply to this comment
by mdc76082 January 31, 2007 4:51 PM EST
Agnim, there isn't always a murder weapon at the scene of a murder. Sometimes there isn't even a body. It's harder to prove a case this way and to get a conviction, but it can & has been done. You start getting the jury thinking, "hey there's no evidence that links her to the poisoning itself, but there isn't anybody else involved, so she must have done it." That's circumstantial. Harder to prove, harder to get a conviction. You don't need "hard" evidence to bring someone down, but it sure helps the case. It's not a flaw in the justice system. If theres enough circumstantial evidence and that's all you got, then the DA will make a case.
Reply to this comment
by jetlizhan January 31, 2007 1:46 PM EST
nyckate:
well said!!! hey, maybe she'll hook up with Scott Peterson yet!
Reply to this comment
by nyckate January 31, 2007 1:42 PM EST
What don't these people get - for $250k and a pair of fake boobs she took her husband's life and threw away her own - bet the divorce option doesn't look as bad to her now as it did then. She should have hooked up with Lacy Petersen's hubbie - then the two of them could have knocked each other off!
Reply to this comment
by nyckate January 31, 2007 1:40 PM EST
sesavjo - oh please - circumstantial evidence is allowed in court under the law.

Who else had a MOTIVE to murder this 23 year old guy - and who had opportunity to feed him over-abundance of arsenic.

Hey listen - I have the bridge in brooklyn - wanna but that too?? Cash only you understand - you might wake up before the deal is done!
Reply to this comment
by bluestardad January 31, 2007 12:01 PM EST
davey214 ; Ouch! !ext you are going to want women to shoulder their fare share and register for the draft, or pay child support, or even loose custody of their children when they leave their husbands for crack dealers and take their children with them!
Reply to this comment
by sesavjo January 31, 2007 12:00 PM EST
What happened to "Hard Evidence!" You cannot convict a person on cercumstantial alone. You aren't even supposed to be able to take it to a charge on circumstantial alone!! If she did it I hope she rots in hell...BUT....with what evidence they say they DIDN'T have, how was this conviction possible????? Our justice system is seriously questionable!!!!!!!!!!
Reply to this comment
by bluestardad January 31, 2007 11:58 AM EST
Hang Her NOW!
Reply to this comment
by michaure January 31, 2007 11:11 AM EST
her sentence should've been death by decon.
Reply to this comment
See all 52 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

  • MOST POPULAR
Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: