12. Tom O’Connell
Tom O’Connell was the district attorney prosecuting Candy Montgomery.
Tom Polk O’Connell was the Collin County District Attorney in 1980, the man tasked with prosecuting Candy Montgomery for the murder of Betty Gore. The case quickly became one of the most publicized in Texas, and O’Connell stood at the center of it, arguing that what happened in that small Wylie home was not self-defense but deliberate, sustained violence.
In court, he built his case around the brutality of the scene: forty-one blows with a three-foot ax. He told jurors that Candy Montgomery had every chance to walk away once Betty was disarmed, yet she kept striking. O’Connell challenged the defense’s use of hypnosis and psychological testimony, questioning whether such methods belonged in a courtroom at all. He also pointed to Montgomery’s calm, controlled behavior after the killing as proof that she knew exactly what she was doing. His approach was direct, methodical, and rooted in the belief that fear alone could not explain that level of force.
The community followed every moment. Residents filled the courthouse and lined the streets outside, convinced justice would be served. When the jury came back with an acquittal, the anger was immediate. Crowds shouted “Murderer” as Montgomery left the building, while O’Connell, stoic in defeat, became both praised and criticized—admired for his tenacity, faulted for not convincing the jury.
O’Connell stayed in public service long after the verdict. He continued as Collin County District Attorney for more than twenty years before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas, where he oversaw major narcotics and violent crime cases. Later, in private practice, he often reflected on the Montgomery trial as one of his greatest professional tests, a case that forced prosecutors to reckon with how juries interpret fear, trauma, and violence inside domestic walls.
The trial’s legacy outlived its verdict. It reshaped debate about self-defense law in Texas, exposed the gender bias that can sway juries, and raised doubts about the place of psychological evidence in criminal court. For Tom O’Connell, it remained the case that defined his career, proof of how difficult it can be to draw a clear line between panic and intent when the whole country is watching.
