Search warrants yielded several items prosecutors say were used during the fatal assault on Christopher Martin.
SHIRLEY, N.Y. — A sledgehammer, a television, a 20-pound dumbbell and a baseball bat recovered during a homicide investigation now stand at the center of the murder case against three people accused of killing Christopher Martin inside his home.
Suffolk County prosecutors say the objects were used during a group attack lasting more than 30 minutes on June 14. They have charged Korey Sammarco, Melissa Fawcett and Benjamin Sheppard with two counts each of second-degree murder and one count each of first-degree gang assault. Authorities also allege that Martin’s cellphone was destroyed during the confrontation, preventing him from calling police. The prosecution’s account links physical evidence, statements and the defendants’ relationships with Martin, but none of that evidence has yet been tested before a jury.
Law enforcement officers executed multiple search warrants after Martin’s death and recovered all four objects named in the indictment announcement, according to District Attorney Raymond Tierney’s office. The public statement did not specify whether they were found at the Shirley residence or elsewhere, whether fingerprints or DNA were recovered, or whether laboratory examinations had been completed. It also did not describe the chain of custody for the items. Those details are routinely exchanged with defense attorneys through discovery and can become the subject of hearings over whether evidence was properly obtained and preserved.
The district attorney’s account begins at about 7 p.m., when the three defendants allegedly went to the house and entered through the front door. Martin was in a locked bedroom, prosecutors said. Sammarco allegedly kicked down the door and struck him with a sledgehammer, knocking him to the floor. Prosecutors say the attack continued with the television, dumbbell and bat. They have not publicly assigned every object to a specific defendant in their formal summary, leaving open questions about who allegedly handled each item and how prosecutors intend to establish shared criminal responsibility.
The prosecution will not necessarily be required to prove that each defendant personally inflicted the fatal injury. New York’s rules on accomplice liability can permit a person to be held responsible for another participant’s conduct when the evidence proves the required intent and intentional assistance. The exact legal theories behind the two murder counts were not explained in the district attorney’s announcement. At trial, however, prosecutors would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant met the elements of the charged offense. Merely being present at a crime scene would not, by itself, establish murder.
Martin, 48, was discovered after the confrontation by another person living at the house. Police said a resident called 911 at about 7:30 p.m. to report a fight involving a tenant. Responding officers found Martin badly injured and arranged for him to be transported to NYU Langone Hospital-Suffolk in Patchogue. He was pronounced dead there. Prosecutors said he had suffered broken ribs, internal injuries and severe trauma. Their public description establishes the seriousness of the attack but does not identify which injury caused his death or which alleged act produced it.
The cellphone allegation could be important for reasons beyond the damage to the device itself. Prosecutors say the phone was deliberately broken so Martin could not seek police help. If supported by evidence, that act could be offered as proof of intent, coordination or an effort to prevent intervention. Reporting on the case has attributed the destruction of the phone to Fawcett, who allegedly took it outside and smashed it. The district attorney’s general announcement said the defendants broke the phone but did not provide a detailed account of how investigators reached that conclusion.
Defense attorneys will be entitled to examine the device, photographs, extraction reports and any statements concerning it. They may dispute who possessed the phone, when it was damaged or whether Martin could have used it during the encounter. They could also challenge the reliability or admissibility of statements attributed to their clients. Prosecutors, meanwhile, may seek to combine physical evidence with emergency-call records, hospital information, witness accounts and evidence collected from the residence. The strength of the case will depend not only on what investigators recovered but on whether they can connect each item and statement to a defendant in a legally reliable way.
Sammarco, 36, and Fawcett, 50, were arrested June 15 and initially charged with first-degree gang assault. Sheppard, 34, was arrested June 20. The later indictment added murder counts against all three. Prosecutors say Sammarco lived at the Shirley house and had been Martin’s friend and roommate. They allege the two men had argued during the weeks before Martin’s death. Fawcett, of Central Islip, was Martin’s former girlfriend, and prosecutors say the pair had been feuding after Martin ended the relationship. Sheppard is also from Central Islip, but authorities have released less information about his connection to Martin.
The relationships may help explain why prosecutors believe the encounter occurred, but they do not relieve the state of its burden to prove intent and participation. A dispute, breakup or angry exchange is not itself evidence of murder. The prosecution must establish what each defendant knew, intended and did. Defense attorneys may argue that the confrontation unfolded differently from the government’s account, that statements were misunderstood or obtained improperly, or that one defendant should not be held responsible for another person’s conduct. No detailed defense narrative has been presented in the available public record.
Statements attributed to Sammarco and Fawcett could become especially significant. Local reporting has said Sammarco admitted striking Martin with a sledgehammer, a television and his fists, and that he identified Sheppard and others as participants. Fawcett allegedly told police she struck Martin several times. Before jurors hear any such statements, judges may be asked to decide whether they were obtained lawfully and whether one defendant’s words may be used in a joint proceeding involving the others. A statement by one accused person does not automatically become admissible proof against every codefendant.
The reported reference to additional people raises another evidentiary question. One account said Sammarco identified four other participants, including Sheppard. Only three defendants have been publicly charged with Martin’s killing. Authorities have not announced whether they believe other people were involved, whether additional arrests are possible or whether investigators rejected portions of the alleged statement. The absence of public charges does not establish that the inquiry is closed, but prosecutors are generally limited at trial to evidence they can support and disclose through the court process.
The three defendants were arraigned on the indictment before state Supreme Court Justice Richard Ambro. Sammarco and Fawcett appeared July 1, and Sheppard appeared July 2. Ambro ordered them held while their cases are pending. Each faces up to 25 years to life in prison if convicted of the highest count. Sammarco is represented by John Halverson, Fawcett by Eric Besso and Sheppard by Katherine Fernandez. The available official release did not describe their pleas or include comments from the defense lawyers.
Assistant District Attorney Sheetal Shetty of the Homicide Bureau and Assistant District Attorney Jacob Delauter of the Major Crime Bureau are handling the prosecution. Detective David Gelsomino of the Suffolk County Police Department’s Homicide Squad led the investigation identified in the district attorney’s announcement. Their work will likely be examined through reports, warrant applications, evidence logs and testimony if defense lawyers file motions challenging the searches or statements.
Tierney said the accusations were extremely disturbing and promised that his office would seek justice for Martin and his family. His statement remains the position of the prosecution, not a judicial finding. An indictment means a grand jury determined there was legally sufficient evidence to bring the charges. It does not mean the allegations were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard required for conviction.
Both Fawcett and Sammarco are scheduled to return to court Aug. 6. Sheppard is due Aug. 10. Those appearances may provide the first public indication of whether the defendants will seek separate trials, challenge searches or statements, or contest the legal sufficiency of the indictment. Until those issues are litigated, the recovered objects remain evidence collected by investigators rather than proof accepted by a trial jury.
Author note: Last updated Aug. 2, 2026.