Arizona cases were assembled in an online database as part of a four-part investigative report by Michael Kiefer of The Arizona Republic newspaper: 

 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/projects/prosecutorial-conduct

​

​* Updated on Nov. 25, 2013: This story was corrected to indicate that there were 16, not 18, findings of misconduct or other inappropriate behavior among the 82 death-penalty cases that underwent direct review by the Arizona Supreme Court from 2002 to the present.

 

The 16 findings represent nearly 40 percent of the cases in which misconduct or other inappropriate behavior was alleged (that date range excludes Ring's direct appeal).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​​In 2018, 'The Arizona Republic' submitted a public records request (“PRR”) to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”) regarding one of its prosecutors, Juan Martinez, who was under investigation for serious misconduct by the State Bar of Arizona.

 

The PRR also sought information about Martinez’s communications with a former medial personality, with whom he has been alleged to have had an affair. That same woman became employed at MCAO as a law clerk.

​

​In December of 2018, the Republic reported that MCAO still had not complied with the PRR nor provided justification for its failure to provide said records, as required by law (while MCAO had prevented the public from accessing its own records on the subject). MCAO was required to provide some 847 documents about Martinez to the State Bar, however, MCAO requested that these 847 documents be filed under a 'protective order' to prevent the public from learning their contents.

*The Presiding Disciplinary Judge, who is overseeing the ethics investigation, granted the request.

​

The State Bar investigated Martinez about whether he provided false testimony during a disciplinary hearing and whether he revealed the identity of a juror in the second Jody Arias murder trial, which he prosecuted in 2013-2015.

 

Martinez's conduct, as well as the conduct of all of the other corrupt officials within the MCAO, calls into question whether all of them acted dishonestly during any of the thousands of criminal cases they have handled during the course of decades and thousands of cases. The concern would be whether there might be innocent people whom they wrongfully sent to prison, or people who were sent to prison unfairly, based upon some form of prosecutorial misconduct.

​

​

 

Dishonesty is a cardinal sin in the legal profession. As lawyers, they are officers of the court, and, as such, are expected to always tell the truth. Always. Whenever any lawyer, especially a prosecutor, is found to be untruthful, it not only casts doubt upon all of his/her cases, but also impacts the public’s perception of the legal profession at-large.

 

Since Arias’ 2015 murder conviction, Martinez has been the subject of at least seven formal Bar complaints.

 

One particular complaint, which addresses about 10 years' worth of his cases, accused him of:

​

(1) engaging in unprofessional conduct.

 

(2) using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden another person. 

 

(3) using methods of obtaining evidence that violates the legal rights of persons.

 

(4) improperly tarnishing defendants.  

 

(5) engaging in professional misconduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

 

Obviously extremely serious accusations against any attorney but in Arizona, it happens and continues to happen all too often, and even more damning when lodged against prosecutors, Martinez isn't the last one, MCAO corruption history has given us more and more misconduct and corruption from their office, and, even up the ladder to the judges that have failed to seek discipline against these actions, when it was right there in front of them.

​

According to the Republic, several women came forward within a period of a year—including former jurors, court staff, and court reporters, to make further accusations against Martinez.

 

In early 2017, Martinez was formally accused of carrying on affairs with two different media personalities (one TV commentator and one Internet blogger) during the trials. It was alleged in the ethics complaints that Martinez leaked confidential information to the media personalities, including the identity of the sole holdout juror in a second trial. That juror was, in turn, hounded and threatened by bloodthirsty members of the public who wanted to see that defendant receive the death penalty. The threats to this juror got so bad that eventually she needed 24-hour police protection to maintain her safety.

*That complaint was dismissed in January 2018, however, the State Bar appealed the decision.

 

During the appellate process, the State Bar obtained interviews from yet another woman who had been dismissed as a juror in a trial. She stated that Martinez called and texted her, asked her questions about other remaining jurors on the panel, and flirted with her to the point that she sent him pictures of her bare breasts.

​

In October 2018, the Disciplinary Committee of the Arizona Supreme Court found probable cause to file a formal complaint against Juan Martinez. The complaint stated the Committee found sufficient proof that Martinez had;

 

(1) provided confidential and/or sealed information including the identity of a juror in a case to a third party. 

 

 

(2) provided false testimony or evidence during the State Bar’s disciplinary investigation regarding the nature of his relationship and conversations with third parties including the member of the news media and a discharged juror.

*The matter proceeded to a formal hearing where Martinez faced a range of disciplinary action, which included formal disbarment.

 

 

The fact that Martinez (or any attorney for that matter), ever faced bar discipline is important, but not nearly as important as the collateral impact it may have on all their other cases.

 

Convictions may be overturned, sentences reduced, new trials ordered. MCAO may have been sued, say, by the juror whose identity Martinez is accused of leaking to the press, which may have left taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars.

 

It may further affect a murder conviction and sentence of life imprisonment (both of which, at last check, are currently on appeal) as well as other criminal prosecutions handled by Martinez over the many years.

​*Prosecutorial misconduct all too often goes on ignored, unpunished or undetected.

 

Prosecutors are entrusted with tremendous power and we, as a society, expect prosecutors to be held to the highest of ethical standards. And most prosecutors do play by the rules. But there are more prosecutors willing to engage in clear acts of prosecutorial misconduct in the state of Arizona than most people want to admit.

 

 

It is, unfortunately, rather common for MCAO prosecutors to withhold evidence that is helpful to the defense or to intimidate certain witnesses from coming forward. Even worse, criminal defense attorneys and judges are often ill-equipped to properly deal with prosecutors engaging in bad behavior.

 

When the accusations are true, and the Supreme Court’s ethics committee has already found probable cause to believe that they are—the court system should review all of the previous cases to make sure he and his fellow prosecutors did not engage in bad behavior in those cases. 

​

​

​

Press Release: Center for Prosecutor Integrity Calls on Prosecutors to Root out Misconduct After AZ Report of Widespread Unethical Practices 

*Posted on November 6, 2013 by Phil Locke 

 

 

WASHINGTON / November 6, 2013 – Following revelations that 22% of death sentence cases in Arizona involve judicial findings of impropriety, the 'Center for Prosecutor Integrity' is calling on prosecutors nationwide to take a proactive approach to hold unethical prosecutors accountable and restore public confidence in the criminal justice system.

​

The finding of widespread prosecutor misbehavior is based on a review of all death sentence convictions in Arizona in the past decade. These sentences are routinely seen by the state Supreme Court. Since 2002, there have been 82 death sentence cases reviewed by the state high court. In 18 of the cases – 22% of the total — the Supreme Court made a finding of impropriety.

​

Just a few examples of unethical practice include; presenting false testimony, resorting to emotional appeals in closing arguments, referring to mitigating evidence as “excuses,” and removing a jacket worn by a victim from a plastic evidence bag for the jury’s “smelling pleasure.”​ as part of Michael Kiefer's investigative report in The Arizona Republic newspaper. 

​

The Arizona study is important because previous analyses of prosecutorial misconduct focused on cases that were pre-selected based on defense counsel’s allegation of misconduct or a judicial determination of a wrongful conviction.

 

The Arizona findings likely underestimate the true extent of wrong-doing because the most egregious cases of misconduct triggered a mistrial or led to a last-minute plea deal not carrying a death sentence.

 

“In the past, some prosecutors have insisted that unethical conduct is so rare that it doesn’t even deserve attention,” notes CPI spokesperson Sheryl Hutter. “But when a high court concludes more than one in five cases involve impropriety, taxpayers should be demanding accountability and lawmakers should be convening hearings.”