Spotlight on Juan Martinez

The Jodi Arias Trial

Shining a spotlight on the Prosecutor Juan Martinez

Fact based reporting

By Rob Roman

“Mr. Martinez, you keep trying to make this a rational scenario, and it isn’t rational.” – Expert defense witness

For Juan Martinez, there are no “irrational” scenarios about a murder. Murder is against the laws of God and man. There is a victim here. A human being is dead in an unnatural way. The defendant is the accused. Many hours of police work and investigation have been rendered. The defendant has been brought to trial. Juan Martinez is going to trial to put them in a cage. A conviction will slam the door shut. When the conviction survives appeals, the door will be locked. That is the only rational response to murder.


juan in 2002


Juan Martinez doesn’t want to hear about any exceptions to the rule. He doesn’t want to hear “this is not what it seems”. The defense always seems to have an excuse, a rationalization, explanations, and alternate scenarios. The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense must show is any doubt, any doubt at all. The prosecution needs a unanimous jury to convict. The defense only needs one juror on their side to jam the wheels of justice. If you get a conviction, an appeal can change a sentence, send the case back to trial, or even free the defendant.


juan martinez large








From Juan’s perspective, one can see why he may feel like the system is against the victims of crime.  To Juan it’s truly an “adversarial system” and he will fight to win. When the death penalty is involved, the two sides tend to go too far and we might be losing a search for the truth. Winning the conviction becomes more important than the truth. Juan’s black and white way of viewing crime works well most of the time. But sometimes there will be someone in the defendant’s chair who is innocent of the crime charged or over-charged.

Sometimes this person gets stuck in the wheels of justice. Many innocent defendants have been convicted and jailed and some have been executed. So we must always be sure a trial is a search for the truth, even if sometimes the guilty person is set free. The prosecution and the defense both play vital roles in this process. The rights of victims must be carefully balanced with the rights of the accused.

During the final arguments in the guilt phase of the Jodi Arias murder trial, lead Defense attorney, Lawrence Kirk Nurmi, talked about shining a spotlight on the actions of the prosecution, specifically detective and co-counsel Esteban “Steve” Flores and the sole prosecuting attorney, Juan Martinez. The implication was that Mr. Martinez had acted improperly during the trial. I believe Detective Flores to be an honest man who only followed Dr. Horn’s opinion and he tried to help Jodi at the interrogation.

Of the enthusiastic trial watchers in the Jodi Arias case, there is also a spotlight on Juan Martinez. Prosecution supporters (Justice4Travis), see him as a “bulldog” a hero who tenaciously pursues the defendant until he can wrest a guilty verdict. Defendant supporters (Team Jodi) see him as over the top, going too far, and using a combination of emotionally charged persuasion, some direct evidence and some speculation to sway juries to render a guilty verdict.

There are many ways a prosecutor can win a case. There is hard work, attention to detail, experience, excellent direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and preparation. There is also a fierce devotion to the job of bringing a dangerous criminal to justice. Finally you will need a good grasp of the evidence, and know how to explain and persuade a jury that your evidence is sound. Juan Martinez is all of this and more.

He is passionate, dedicated, and I believe he sees the defense as having too many advantages in the system. I believe he employs methods normally used by defense attorneys to persuade the jurors to see things his way. Juan Martinez is well known for using wild speculation and “facts” not supported by the evidence in his closing arguments.

Maybe the truth is not in the extremes but somewhere in the middle. We can shine the spotlight on past and present cases to try to determine what is motivating the prosecutor with the impressive 22-1 record, Juan Martinez.

new sealHere is what his admirers in cyber space say about Juan:

Respectfully I’d like to thank Mr. Martinez for giving me the realization there’s someone fighting for victims. My father was brutally murdered in 1990, very similar to what happened to Travis Alexander.

It was very brutal I lost my faith in the judicial system after what my family went thru and watching the way these murderers have all the rights yet the victims do not. Mr. Martinez, as I see it, represents a man who I wish there were more of. He is God’s light and I wish him all the best in this world where sometimes I think our society’s become blind to so many things…

And if anything at all, perhaps some could look at this man and appreciate what he does for so many. He is truly an asset to the state. As for Ms. Arias, I hope for the victims’ family…Justice.

Juan Martinez is the best. So sick of the trash that is going around surrounding this case. Who is on trial here?

I think he is the best. If I ever need a lawyer he’s it. No BS with him. Why waste time with guilty killers?

Juan is the second youngest of a family of nine. He came to America at age 6 when his family emmigrated from Mexico and settled in California. He vowed to learn English well and be a success. He participated in many activities, such as running long distance track in high school. He finished college and attended ArizonaStateUniversity where he earned his law degree. Juan did some volunteer legal work and some work defending clients. Then, in 1988, he joined the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.

juan early yrs






What is in Juan Martinez’ heart and mind? We can try to have a better understanding of him by knowing his feeling. In this world and surely in Arizona, there is crime and there are criminals. There are vicious and violent senseless crimes and uncaring evil and cruel criminals. Juan is very aware of this. Let’s take a look at the A B C’s of the convicts now on Arizona’s Death Row:


frank atwood atwood victim

Atwood, Frank

Kidnapped and raped an 8 year-old boy.

Kidnapped, raped and Killed an 8 year-old girl and left her in the desert.


patrick bearup

Bearup, Patrick

With three accomplices, beat a man half to death with a baseball bat,

threw him in the trunk of his car, cut off his finger,

shot him with a shotgun and threw him off a cliff.


jonathan burns and victim

Burns, Jonathan

Kidnapped and raped a woman and shot her twice in the head.



Chappelle, Derek

Choked his girlfriend’s 2 1/2 year-old son nearly to death

then later drowned him in a swimming pool.



Cota, Benjamin

Beat an older man to death with a hammer, then bound his wife and struck her

in the head repeatedly with a hatchet until dead.

He wrapped them up in plastic, hid in their home, then stole everything they had

of value including their car.



Djerf, Richard

Raped a 17 year-old girl, then shot, stabbed and beat to death the girl,

her father and mother and her 5 year-old brother.



Ellison, Charles

With an accomplice, broke into a couple’s home, bound them with telephone cord

and masking tape, then suffocated the husband with a pillow and choked the wife to death.


So, it’s easy to see why Juan grew up believing in law and order, right and wrong, good and bad. He believes that if you intentionally caused a person’s death, you should pay by being removed from society and in many cases, sentenced to death. It’s just so simple. It’s not difficult to see where his sentiments come from.


It was 1997, ten years after Juan Martinez joined the Maricopa County Attorney’s office. Late at night in an upscale neighborhood in MaricopaCounty, Greg Koons heard screams coming from his neighbor’s back yard. He went outside and peered over the fence. He saw his neighbor, casually pushing his wife into his in-ground swimming pool and holding her head under the water. He sprinted inside and called the police.

scott falater






Soon after, the neighbor, Scott Falater, opened his door to the police. Confused and not understanding what the fuss was all about, the police went into his backyard and found his wife Yarmilla floating dead in the pool. She had been stabbed 44 times. Scott Falater was a High Councilor in the Mormon Church, and a husband and father of two. He was a successful design engineer with Motorola and very active in the church. He was a mild-mannered man, had seldom become angry, and had no motive to kill his wife whom he loved dearly.

Juan Martinez went to court to exact justice. It seemed like an open and shut case. There was an eye witness, a direct identification of the perpetrator, and a viciously stabbed and drowned wife. The man was arrested within minutes of the crime. The courtroom was nearly empty. Next door in a crowded courtroom was a high profile case. Teen members of a Crips gang were on trial for a brutal, three hour sexual assault of a fifteen year-old mentally handicapped girl.

Juan Martinez was shocked to find out that the man’s high paid attorneys were claiming their client, Scott Falater, was innocent by reason of sleepwalking! Like the Jodi Arias case, the focus was not on who did the killing, but why. The defense claimed that Scott Falater had no incentive, motive or reason to kill his wife of 20 years. There had to be another explanation for why this would occur. For Juan, there is no why. She’s dead and he killed her and justice will be done. For Juan, you are either a good or bad person. If you do something like this, you are a bad person and the “why” shouldn’t matter at all. Still he needed to give the jury a viable motive.

This is the template case for the Jodi Arias case. Both involved horrific killings where the defendants admitted to horrific acts but claimed no knowledge of the killings or any intent of murder. Both defenses relied on crucial expert testimony. Juan struggled to find a motive for this senseless killing during the trial. He offered many scenarios to the jury. His wife refused to have more children. His wife was moving his family away from the Mormon Church.

falater family large

Sure, he was mild mannered, but he took his anger from work home to his wife. Juan argued with the defendant and declared that Falater didn’t even know his wife’s birthday. He told a shocked Falater he had the year wrong. Juan was mistaken due to an incorrect report.

Juan Martinez even argued that Falater killed his wife because he thought she was fat and dumpy. Falater made the statement to police that “a terrible sin has been committed”. Falater was referring to the killing. Juan suggested to the jury that Scott Falater killed his wife because SHE committed a terrible sin.

By the end of the trial, State v. Falater starring Juan Martinez had become the new high profile trial in Arizona. The sleepwalking defense became famous around the country. Juan attacked the defense experts. He claimed that the expert’s conclusions were invalid because the expert was not provided with all the details. The defendant recognized his dog but not his wife, and he cleaned up the scene and the evidence.

In closing the defense attorney reminded the jury that Juan Martinez mischaracterized the evidence and made comments not supported by the evidence. The defense attorney implied that the prosecuter violated his duty to see that truth and justice is done. The defense reminded the jury that Scott Falater was a passive and non-violent man, and that the prosecution could not come up with a valid reason or motive for the killing.

The defense attorney tried to explain to the jury that sometimes there are cases where things are not as they seem. There are exceptions when things happen which are difficult to explain. At one point the defense expert witness addressed the prosecutor:

“Mr. Martinez, you keep trying to make this a rational scenario, and it isn’t rational.” At some point in the closing, Martinez slammed the door on all this talk about sleepwalking.

“Do you think that she deserved to die?” he asked. “Look at her. We’ve placed so much attention on him, everything’s about him. Look at her!”

juan 1






Juan Martinez then threw a photo up of the victim on the autopsy table. He loudly implored the jury to look at her, to look at the indignity of the victim.  The defense attorney talks about reasons, REASONS?

Scott Falater “had 44 reasons to KILL his wife”, Martinez screamed. He was referring to the 44 knife wounds. Only one member of this Arizona jury had a college degree.

He appealed to the nuts and bolts sense of the jury.

He had a sound argument for the jury:

“This guy here killed his wife ….. and he’s guilty of first-degree murder.”

Scott Falater was found guilty of 1st degree muder and sentenced by the judge to life without parole.

Even 15 years before the Jodi Arias case, Juan Martinez was already honing his craft. He was becoming an expert at arguing the details with expert witnesses, discrediting witnesses, questioning the memory of the defendant and defense witnesses, and calling them out as liars. He was becoming better than defense attorneys at weaving speculation into the facts of the case while at the same time, calling defense evidence fictions and  “fantasy”.

He ridiculed defense theories, calling them such things as “The man of La Mancha defense”. Fifteen years before the Arias trial, Juan was already in the habit of yelling at witnesses, including a priest, and ridiculing witnesses. Even in the Falater trial, he questioned the children of the victim and the defendant in a voice laced with irony and sarcasm.  In Juan’s view, he had delivered justice for Yarmilla. Her children who lost two parents may beg to differ.

doug grant






hilary falaterLater, Juan had another case of seemingly obvious 1st degree murder. Two divorced Mormons had married. Doug Grant was a very successful in the health products business. He owned a multi-million dollar company. His clients included famous professional athletes and NBA teams.

Doug cheated on his wife with his receptionist. His wife, Faylene, found out and complained to the church. Here we see the dangerous nexus between the LDS Church, social life, and business. It seems that if Doug Grant did not return to his wife, the church would get involved and this would impact his business. It’s important to understand this dynamic of the Mormon Church in the Jodi Arias trial.

Doug told Faylene he ended it with his girlfriend Hilary, and he wanted to remarry Faylene in Las Vegas. They went for an impromptu  2nd Honeymoon at Timpanogos Cave National Monument where his wife suddenly and mysteriously fell into trees down a sixty foot cliff.

ht_doug_faylene_090331_msShe survived and they returned home. Faylene took some pain killers and a bath to heal from her injuries.

She was found dead in the bathtub by Doug Grant in September, 2001. Three weeks after Faylene’s death, Doug Grant married his receptionist, Hilary Dewitt, and they soon became a family aftter Hilary adopted Faylene’s two sons.

Another high priced attorney and in Juan’s mind, more excuses, fancy explanations, technicalities, more sure signs of guilt that the court would not admit into evidence.

hilary falayer 2Imagine Juan’s shock and disbelief when he could not convince the jury of the 1st degree murder he believed was so obvious. The jury was clearly divided and Juan was forced to give instructions for lesser included offenses. Murder one and the death penalty was off the table for Doug Grant. He got  a 5 year sentence for manslaughter.

Faylene had made many statements about committing suicide and had even given Hilary her blessing to take car of her children. The prosecution had tried, unsuccessfully,  to hide these facts from the jury.

I can imagine that Juan was devastated, and thought justice had not been done. He had failed to get justice for Faylene. He contemplated his lessons and moved on.



The Grant family still believes Doug is innocent. They list a number of accusations of prosecutorial misconduct in State v. Grant. This includes

-“Losing” key evidence, “throwing away reports”, and failure to turn over key evidence to the defense in a timely manner.

-Convincing the judge to not allow into evidence testimony that the medical examiner was pressured to change his opinion about the cause of death on the victim’s autopsy report from “accident” to “undetermined”.

-Convincing the judge to rule possible exculpatory evidence as inadmissible

-Convincing the judge not to allow into evidence testimony and records showing that investigators were removed from the case when they told their superiors they could not find evidence of foul play.

-Objecting over fifty times during the defense opening statements.

-Preventing defense witness from trying to explain their answers by cutting off their answers and forcing them to answer either yes, or no.

-When these same witnesses were being questioned by the defense, Juan Martinez objected “over 200 times per day”.

-The prosecution case took three and one half months, but the judge ordered the defense to complete their case in two weeks in order to “stay on schedule”.

-Intimidating defense witnesses by accusing them of violating the law without evidence or any record of a law having been broken. The accusation that they broke the law is used to discredit their testimony and truthfulness.

-Accusing defense witnesses of lying but using arguing tactics and word tricks rather than evidence to support it.

-Using the normal and common variations in a witness’ statements and memory to attack their memory of an event, and then to suggest that the memory varies because the witness is lying.

-Also in this trial, jury members who were not a part of the final jury admitted that they had been influenced by the media and they had made up their minds the defendant was guilty before the trial began.

The jury did not believe the prosecution’s theory and did not like Juan’s tactics. Do any of these tactics foster a “search for the truth”? Do you recognize any of these tactics from the Jodi Arias trial? Doug’s family feels that truth and justice were not found in State v. Grant. These two quotes appear on their website:


“Anybody who understands the justice system knows innocent people are convicted every day.” –Florida Supreme Court Justice, Gerald Kogun (Ret.)


“In this country the presumption of innocence is dead, dead, dead.” –John Grisham


Not long after, Juan found himself on the losing side of a case. A man had been found shot dead in the forest. The defendant was David Wayne Carr. The evidence was thin. Juan started fighting back in his own way. With less than two weeks before the trial, Martinez did not give the defense a list of his witnesses and other materials. The defense was angry. They could not properly prepare their defense. They filed a complaint to the judge. This offense was punishable by up to six months in jail. The judge was very upset that his court was delayed.

The County attorney hired a high powered attorney to defend Juan. He fought back against the charge. Juan accused the defense of not giving a list of possible defenses to him until 2 weeks before the trial. Do you recognize this lawyer’s tactic of counter-charging from the Jodi Arias trial? Juan ended up being forced to write a letter of apology to the court. The case was delayed and later, the jury found David Carr not guilty.

This is the only case Martinez lost. Strangely, a mysterious friend of Jodi Arias appeared in the courtroom during her trial. He called himself “Bryan Carr”. He claimed to talk to Jodi daily and that he had confidential information. He claimed Jodi was telling the truth about the two masked people that were responsible for the murder. The claim was that Travis Alexander’s murder was actually an old Mormon atonement ritual called “blood atonement”. A Mormon who had committed grave sins could still go to heaven if he paid for his sins through this death ritual. Arias claimed she did not know Carr and she did not listen to him. Then, “Bryan Carr” disappeared from the courtroom and the media as quickly as he had appeared.

wendi andrMartinez recovered with the murder trial of Wendi Andriano. Wendi’s Husband was terminally ill. There were changes in his life insurance policy. He was going to win a large lawsuit. The bleach blonde Wendi was neglecting and cheating on her husband and always out drinking. She was never home. There was a question about whether her husband would leave her. Maybe he would cut her out of his will.

On October 8, 2000, Wendi tried to poison her husband. It wasn[t the first time. She called an ambulance when it seemed like he was about to die, then she sent the ambulance away when he partially recovered. Later she hit him 23 times in the head with a barstool. She stabbed him multiple times leaving the knife in his throat.


wendi andriano large







Juan cross examined Wendi Andriano ferociously. Wendi claimed that the poisoning was a planned assisted suicide, that her husband accepted her cheating, and that he attacked her and she defended herself.

On the stand she said “If I am convicted, it is because of my own bad choices”. Interestingly, Jodi Arias actually mimicked some of the mannerisms of Wendi Andriano and quoted her while on the stand. Wendi’s hair also returned to its natural brown color and she dressed down and wore glasses at her death penalty trial.

But the victim, Joseph Andriano would win the day. The jury didn’t believe her story and they sentenced her to death just a few days before Christmas, 2004.

wendi andriano 1



Empowered from his victory, Juan must have felt invincible. Things were going well for Juan, and his record was impressive. Then he ran into a legal buzz saw named Shawn P. Lynch.

This may have really hardened him about the justice system.  Lynch and a friend had killed a man and then went on a spending spree with his credit card. There was plenty of evidence and little doubt about who committed the crime. The confusion came from who did what. The jury convicted Lynch of murder but they could not agree on premeditation.

Next Juan would learn about the aggravation of the aggravators. The jury agreed on murder for a money motive, but they disagreed on heinous cruel or depraved. A second mitigation and penalty phase was ordered.

During the second phases, Juan instructed the jury that there were four aggravating circum206125stances: Pecuniary gain (money), heinous, cruel, and depraved. In 2006, the jury found all four aggravators and sentenced Lynch to death.

Juan thought he had justice for James Panzarella, but the case was far from over.

Shawn Lynch appealed with a barrage of issues, including prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Juan Martinez. The higher court rejected most of the claims.

Technically, heinous, cruel and depraved are not three aggravators. They are three “prongs” of a single aggravator. The court stated that since the jury was instructed there were four aggravators instead of two, this was found to be prejudicial to the client. So this crime from 2001 and death penalty sentence from 2006, has yet go back to trial a third time for another sentencing phase.

More than 12 years later, there is not a final sentence. There has been no closure for the Panzarellas.  I think this experience aggravated Juan and made him feel that the justice needs a little push sometimes since the system and appeals process all seem to be on the defendant’s side.

dean glickJuan had better success with State v. Glick. Dean Glick, 41, was a vile and degenerate person by any standards. He lived with his 82 year old mother. He abused her and stole her money. He hired a prostitute and promised her a huge bonus. His mother protested when he tried to use her credit card to pay. The prostitute left with her driver when the argument became heated. They quickly called the police.

Dean Glick then beat his 82 year-old mother to death with a plastic flashlight. When the police arrived, Glick had barricaded the front door. There was plenty of evidence and two eye witnesses who saw the beginning of a horrible fight just minutes before the murder.

Imagine Juan’s attitude towards defense attorneys when Glick’s attorneys told the jury that Dean was caring and responsible. He loved his mom way too much to kill her. They simply had an argument. The argument got out of control and the beating was not so bad. Glick broke his mom’s ribs and sternum not while beating her but while trying to perform CPR on her fragile body! It is not difficult to understand Juan’s disdain for the defense. Dean Glick was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

cory and victimsMartinez had further success with a high profile serial killer case. Cory Morris was accused of killing his girlfriend and four other women and burying them next to his trailer. From 2002 to 2003 he had lured the women into his home with promises of money. Then the victims were subjected to beatings, rape, murder and then necrophilia. Imagine the disdain on his face when the defense counsel addressed the jury.

corry morrisThis is the case where Juan Martinez cut open an evidence bag containing the coat of one of the murdered and buried victims, removed it, and “invited the jury to take a good whiff”. This was supposedly to prove necrophelia, even though:

1) There was really no need to do so, and

2) How does a jacket that smells like death prove necrophelia?



The defense was equally irrational, arguing that although Morris committed 5 murders, he had not premeditated any of them. Therefore, Corey Morris should get five counts of 2nd degree murder and not the death penalty. The jury did not accept the argument.

Morris was sentenced to death in July, 2005.


In 2005, Juan Martinez was the prosecutor in the case of an Arizona State University star running back who shot a teammate to death in a parking lot. Juan was not moved by the idea of the popular Arizona Sun Devils running back making some bad decisions and a terrible mistake.

loren wade 2

In 2007, Loren Wade was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Juan had another win under his belt. Most likely Juan doesn’t remember Loren Wade’s name, but he certainly remembers Brandon Falkner, who was shot to death for talking to Wade’s girlfriend. Falkner was the less well known football player who’s life was cut so short.loren wade







Then there was State v. Miller. William Craig Miller, 34, was a business owner who committed arson, burning down his own home for insurance money. He talked his employee Steven Duffy into helping him. When Duffy and his girlfriend, Tammy Lovell, offered to help the police prosecute him, Miller retaliated.

He killed Duffy, his eighteen year old brother, Lovell, and her two children ages 15 and 10. Imiller victimsmagine the ire in the conscience of Juan Martinez when the defense attorney implored the jury to “keep an open mind” and to remember that “things are not always as they seem”.

The defense attorney told the jury that life in prison is punishment enough and showed smiling baby photos of Miller. They said to remember that there was a human being inside the monster and that Miller suffered from bipolar disorder. Juan pounced on this sickening plea. What about Duffy, Lovell, her brother, and the children? Where is their mercy?

1234216_GThe jury convicted him of five counts of 1st degree murder and sentenced him to death in 2011.

For Juan Martinez, he will grudgingly provide a “why”. If the jury needs a “why”, he will find one to give them. But for Juan, there is no why. You took a life. We know you did it, and now it is time to pay for your sin. Many murders are straightforward. Juan Martinez doesn’t see that there are rare exceptions and sometimes there are possible explanations for something that seems like a horrible and vicious murder.

In 2013, in the Arias trial, Juan finds himself once again accused of prosecutorial misconduct.  Withholding from the defense text messages, Instant messages, and e-mails recovered from the cell phone of Travis Alexander in time for trial.  Thousands and thousands of messages were recovered and turned over in 2011 shortly before the anticipated beginning of the trial. The trial was delayed many times.

Other incidents of misconduct throughout the trial have been alleged by the defense, including suborning perjury in the testimony of the Medical Examiner, Dr. Kevin Horn. More recently, there are allegations that the prosecution tried to hide evidence found on victim, Travis Aexander’s computer.


Juan Martinez was in his usual element, berating defense witnesses, attempting to insult and humiliate the defendant and expert defense witnesses. Appealing to the emotions rather than the reason and logic of the jury, trying to shape the testimony of defense witnesses, cutting them off  before they can explain their answers, and questioning witnesses with cynical and aggressive questioning, even screaming, barking and snapping at witnesses in bulldog fashion.


jodi juanNurmi attempted to shine a “spotlight” on the actions of the prosecutor by making accusations of misconduct throughout the trial, an attempt to deceive the jury by making their unlikely order of injuries a scientific certainty which would highly benefit the prosecution’s case.

Finally, adding the nonsensical charge of 1st degree felony murder for fear that the jury would not believe the thin and mostly speculative evidence of premeditation. Whatever it took, Juan vowed to deliver justice for Travis Alexander and his shattered family.

juan katie wicktrial century

Many trial watchers praised Juan Martinez as a hero. In the media and also in social media, victim’s rights were enshrined and Juan’s devices were duplicated.

Witnesses were threatened and intimidated by mostly anonymous Facebook and Twitter avengers. Only one side of the story was presented. Anyone who said anything in support of the defendant, her attorneys and witnesses was castigated. Speculations were presented in the media and social media as fact. Exculpatory evidence was not allowed into the public domain. Any opinion in any way favorable to the defendant or the defense was ridiculed, blocked, and deleted. Posters were driven away by swarms of avengers and Facebook pages supporting Jodi Arias were deleted due to false complaints of “pornography”.

juan 2Currently, Juan has completed the Chrisman trial where a former Phoenix police officer is charged with 2nd degree murder, assault, and cruelty to animals after shooting a man and his dog in his home during a complaint of violence. Juan had an eye witness and some evidence, but there was a problem with missing evidence from outside the home favoring Chrisman.

chrismanJuan responded in a clever fashion. He suggested to the jury during closing arguments that Chrisman’s fellow officers may have hidden and destroyed evidence as well as altering the crime scene. No evidence was introduced in support of the accusation. Richard Chrisman2794230_G

The judge gave the jury instructions that what is said in closing arguments is not evidence and that lack of evidence should be seen as favorable to Chrisman. Even so, jury members were influenced by the contention that his fellow officers helped Chrisman by removing and destroying evidence.

chrisman trial 2Chrisman claimed that he shot the victim because he picked up a bicycle and threatened to assault the officer. Juan told the jury that “no gun residue was found on the bicycle”, proving that Chrisman was lying. In fact, no tests were conducted on the bicycle for gun residue. Juan Martinez had used a defense-style tactic to influence the jury.

Chrisman’s defense attorneys have complained that the Grand Jury was not given the evidence it needed to make a sound decision about whether the case should be brought to trial or what proper charges were to be brought.

“Chrisman’s lawyers filed a motion claiming the prosecutors in the case, Juan Martinez and Ted Duffy, omitted certain facts and ignored questions from the grand jury that indicted him”.

“Chrisman’s lawyers say prosecutors never told the grand jury about the victim’s alleged drug use or comments made by Chrisman to the first officer on the scene.”

juan crossIn the past, these actions were deemed as misconduct by Arizona judges. Now the exact same behaviors are not viewed as misconduct. Here is the response to such behavior in Arizona in a 2006 murder case:

“Mr. Duffy  (the prosecutor) did a lot of things during the trial that in my opinion were just outrageous,” said Raynak (the defense attorney).”

“Raynak says Duffy’s misconduct included introducing evidence after he was told not to, and making statements about evidence that simply weren’t true. Judge Arthur Anderson agreed, and after notifying the bar, Duffy was suspended for 30 days and given probation for a year”. In the Chrisman case, Martinez and Duffy had teamed up to deliver Justice for Danny Rodriguez and his mother who had called the police to begin with.

Although it seems that ex-officer Chrisman was very wrong in his actions, pepper spraying, tasing, then shooting Rodriguez and his dog to death, the jury should be given the sound evidence and be able to make a fair decision based on the evidence and testimony presented. The jury should not be unduly influenced by tricks and tactics designed to influence the jury outside of the facts of the case.

The prosecutors should not mislead the Grand Jury, try to keep out exculpatory evidence, and make arguments to the jury which mischaracterizes evidence. Expert witnesses can be discredited or have their opinions questioned, but character assassination, taunting and ridicule of qualified experts should not be allowed. The prosecution should turn over witness lists and evidence to the defense on time.

Iredondoeric shuhandler

In his upcoming case, State v. Christopher Redondo, Juan has been sparring with the judge. Redondo has already been convicted for the unrelated murder of Ernie Singh on June 24, 2009.  For this, Redondo was sentenced to life in prison. Now, Redondo is accused of shooting to death Gilbert Police Lt. Eric Shuhandler in January 2010.

Redondo was reportedly despondent in his cell and refusing to talk to defense counsel. Judge Barton requested that Juan Martinez attempt a plea bargain to life in prison and has ordered a competency hearing. Juan Martinez became incensed and convinced that the judge is trying to stop him from getting Redondo the death penalty.  Juan also feels Judge Barton is “sympathetic” to the defendant and should not be allowed to preside in the competency hearing. I would say she believes the Death penaty should be used judiciously.

He wants a stricter judge to find him competent to stand trial and to be eligible for execution. Juan knows Redondo is already serving life in prison for the killing of Singh. If he is found guilty, this means he will get no extra punishment for the killing of Officer Shuhandler in 2010. So, Juan feels that Redondo should stop playing mentally sick and should just face execution. In his motion, “Martinez accused Barton of being hostile toward the death penalty in three other cases”.

judgeBartonJanetThis can be directly traced back to State v. Miller. The judge in that case was Judge Barton. Miller was the man who killed 5 people as retaliation for testifying against him in an arson case. Even though there were multiple aggravators such as multiple murders, prior felonies, witness elimination, and the murder of two children. Juan still insisted in motions with the judge that the especially cruel, heinous or depraved aggravator be allowed to be used. The judge replied that there were plenty of other aggravators, and that the five were shot in rapid succession, making it difficult to prove significant mental suffering took place.

“Based upon the evidence presented, the state has not shown that any significant period of time elapsed between the killings and that any victim did not die instantly from the gunshot wounds,” Barton responded. “Rather, it appears that the victims were killed in rapid succession and none of them had significant time to contemplate their fate,” the judge said.

Why does Juan Martinez fight so hard to get an aggravator he doesn’t need to get the death penalty? The answer is precedent.

If this particular crime is seen as supporting the heinous, cruel, or depraved aggravator, then many more cases can claim this aggravator for gunshot murders due to the precedent that can be created in State v. Miller. This allows the prosecutors in Arizona to use the threat of the death penalty more often to force a plea in selected cases. This also widens rather than narrows the number of homicides that can be found eligible for the death penalty.

Judge Barton has presided over other death penalty cases where the sentence was death. Judge Barton has also refused to block death sentences from being carried out. So maybe Juan Martinez is being too tenacious in attacking Judge Barton for being reasonable and judicious in the application of the death penalty.


Update: Bryan Hulsey was found guilty of 1st degree murder of a Police Officer and was sentenced to death in the murder of Glendale Police Officer Anthony Holly on August 28th, 2014. Juan Martinez was the prosecutor. Hulsey threateningly gave the jury a standing ovation, of sorts.

juan 3It’s wonderful when you have a tough prosecutor who will fight hard for the rights of victims and victim’s families. It’s a blessing to have a tenacious prosecutor to protect society from serial killers, cop killers, rogue cops, mass murderers, and outlaw felony murderers with drug habits. The problem comes when you have people such as Scott Falater and Jodi Arias.

These are passive people with no criminal history or history of violence who are claiming that something irrational or not easily explainable happened resulting in a murder. These are cases where the jury really needs to decide on the facts and the evidence without the undue influence from emotional arguments, speculation, and deceptive tactics.

The code of ethics for prosecutors states:

(a) The office of prosecutor is charged with responsibility for prosecutions in its jurisdiction.

(b) The prosecutor is an administrator of justice, an advocate, and an officer of the court; the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her functions.

(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

So to try to discredit an expert Psychological witness with 30 years experience because he made a math mistake, or to try to discredit a domestic violence expert with 30 years experience because of the title she chose for a speaking engagement, seems a little over the top. To withhold evidence and witness lists from the defense in order to put them at a disadvantage in a case where their client faces possible execution also seems over the top.

To try to convince the jury with argument based on speculation and emotion also seems to fall outside the bounds of the ethics of a prosecutor who is supposed to seek justice. To express the sentiment that the defendant is a liar and by extension, all defense witnesses are liars also, falls outside these bounds. To accuse defense witnesses of crimes without evidence and to use these accusations to try and prevent a witness from testifying is a violation of law. For Judges to tolerate these tactics is wrong on its face. Excessive screaming, sarcasm, taunting, and contempt violate the decorum of a capital case. So is purposely dropping evidence (the camera).

Do you want to defend a mass murderer? Neither do I. Do you want to defend a child rapist and killer or an outlaw drug induced spree killer? Neither do I. How far over the line would you go to prosecute the bad guy? If you go too far, the scales are tipped, and you start to become part of the problem. But if you are falsely accused of such a thing, you would want a prosecutor with ethics. You would not want a Grand Jury to indict you on false, misleading, or missing information. You would not want charges to be brought against you without probable cause. You would not want to be overcharged in the crime.

jodi 2You would not want a prosecutor withholding evidence that could set you free, manufacturing, destroying or mischaracterizing evidence, influencing the jury with speculation, or shopping for a hanging judge. Deciding whether a person lives or dies should be based on their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People who think Juan Martinez is a hero like to ask “What if Travis Alexander was your son, your brother, or your friend? But you also need to ask “What if Jodi Arias was your daughter, your friend, or your sister?”

us constitutionThere is no “Justice for Yarmilla”, “Justice for Faylene” or “Justice for Travis”. There is only Justice for all. The balance between victim’s rights and the rights of the accused must be carefully maintained. Otherwise, we are only seeking a conviction. We will have left Justice far behind.


We warmly welcome any comments from anyone with any opinion.

ALL comments are accepted and will be posted.

You can also comment on our FB page



Click to access images…CR050267AP.pdf…RRIS%2C+CORY+

Click to access p…CR060220AP.pdf…ype=SearchInet…stice-delayed/…128694,00.html…rything-wrong/…the-big-sleep/…rder-case.html…andriano_w.htm’s-murder#ixzz2eq4EwMy

53 thoughts on “Spotlight on Juan Martinez”

  1. I did not realize that the prosecutor’s immunity did not extend beyond the wild blue yonder. I learned something again. Great analysis, thank you

    1. Thnaks, Martina. I enjoyed researching Juan’s other cases to see how he operates. He’s a guy who is just sick of Defendants. their attorneys, and tricks, and their interminable excuses and appeals.

      I think he likes to get right on the line of what is ethical, and I think he’s crossed that line in many cases. Prosecutor’s immunity is vast. It’s a needed protection but where do you draw the line?

  2. If he’s sick of defendants then maybe it’s time for a career change, he’s unlikely to avoid them in his line of work.

  3. Well that’s hardly sportsman like since he has all the resources on his side. He should behave in a manner which is beyond reproach, no matter what the defense does. He is supposed to represent justice the defense represents their client, and they are obliged to do that vigorously.

    1. I agree, and I can’t imagine seeing a scene like that in a death penalty case. What is “that thing” in the front of the court room? It’s Juan Marinez.

      I bet you Juan could have sold most members of the jury a snowblower, too.

  4. I want him to tell her that she should go back to law school, or that he’d be suicidal were he to be her husband. I bet his orange picking career would start to look promising.

  5. This is such a detailed post about Juan Martinez. Why do these judges let him get away with prosecutor misconduct? What kind of justice is being served ?? I watched him “performance” in the Arias trial and it absolutely the whole scenario nauseates me. How can he live with himself or sleep at night. I guess with Juan he will do whatever, however to win a case. He’s using the system to win at any cost. Look at what the Arias trial alone has cost the taxpayers of AZ so far AND it’s far from being over. Arias submitted a plea deal to M2 in 2011. The Alexanders’ and the Hughes brothers want blood which feeds right into Juan’s ego. Thank you so much for taking the time that shows his patterns. His antics will eventually catch up with him.
    Sincerely, LM

    1. We appreciate your comments, LM. When I first watched the trial, it just didn’t seem right. We researched what we could find about Juan Martinez. Sure, he has put away some bad criminals. But, look what he does when he’s losing a case or when something unusual happens.

      Honestly, I believe that this is a man who would cheat at a card game even when he’s holding all the cards. No question, Juan likes to use defense attorney tactics against defense attorneys.

      But a prosecutor is supposed to pursue justice and not just a conviction.

      If you look at the Bret Seacat case or any other modern murder case, the focus is always on the evidence, not on the prosecutor. I haven’t seen anyone questioning the Seacat conviction.

      Juan’s style is insulting to the legal profession. Juries must really be gullible in Arizona. This was not a search for the truth, it was race to obscure the truth, and that’s what’s so disturbing about this case.

      I completely agree with your comment. It took a lot of work to research and write this article. We kept it factual, and we included all the facts, favorable to Juan and unfavorable. The research started because we were curios about Juan’s past cases, but I believe this exposes a pattern of a man who became jaded with the justice system early on, and then went way over the line time after time in this case.

      Thanks again for you comments. They mean a lot to us.

  6. Juan has been successful removing many criminals from society and putting them behind bars. As far as Jodi goes, what reasons would she have for packing a 9mm and a knife in her rental car ready to flee? Why did her own family not raise bail? They are willing to raise funds for appeal but left her in prison for years with no attempt to get her released on bail. While many love to believe she is innocent, does her own family? Why did Travis write “you are the worst thing that ever happened to me?”. Why did Jodi write in her journal about her anger issues?

    1. Thank-You for your comments, BBH. If you look at the Scott Falater case, Juan offered the jury five different motives. All of them were ridiculous. This is a violation of the code of ethics for prosecutors.

      “In closing the defense attorney reminded the jury that Juan Martinez mischaracterized the evidence and made comments not supported by the evidence.”

      This was 15 years before the Arias trial, and Juan Martinez has continued to do this. He did it again at the Arias trial, which seemed like a slam-dunk for the average prosecutor, as many of his cases were. Yes, Juan has put some very bad people behind bars, but this does not excuse his ethical violations.

      Jodi always carried knives in her luggage, even before June 4th. We have not seen a description of these knives. Were they butter knives or a small jackknives, or a butcher knives? We don’t know. Registering for and buying a gun legally is not something a person does when they are wanted for murder. It IS something a woman who was attacked and fought for her life would do. There is no evidence of a plan to flee. We don’t know what her intent was.

      Bail was set at $2,000,000. This means her family needed to raise 10% or $200,000 in cash. How many families do you know who can raise this amount? The Skakels / Kennedys can. Had the family been able to raise this amount, she still might not have been released due to dangerousness / flight risk. Now Jodi Arias may be able to raise money for an appeals attorney with all the publicity in this case and the amount of people who think this was not a fair trial.

      I think it was evident that the Arias family stood up for and backed Jodi.

      “You are the worst thing that ever happened to me” is a typical rant when ex-lovers / sex partners are arguing. Travis is the worse thing that ever happened to Travis. Travis never went to his Bishop or a therapist. Instead, he starts blogging about his favorite subject, Travis Alexander. No mention of the mentally ill woman he was using for sex. He should have sought help instead of blaming Jodi for his own bad behaviors.

      Jodi’s journal or anyone’s journal is supposed to be a place where a person’s most private thoughts, ideas, and feelings and fantasies are written. Fortunately, we are not at the stage of the “thought police” or “pre-cogs” yet.

      All your ideas are valid, and if there had been a fair trial, we would have had a genuine search for the truth, all the important questions would have been answered, there would have been reliable verdicts, and we all would have moved on. Instead we are stuck with many unanswered questions and a nagging sense of reasonable doubt in this case for many valid reasons.

      1. If Travis spoke to his Bishop, he would have been ex-communicated from the LDS Church for a period of time. He also would have communicated that to someone.

        We appreciate your comment.

  7. Well, you attempted to answer my questions in a nice little box. All it needs is a bow. How can supporters overlook the evidence against Jodi? To discount Jodi’s own words about her problems with anger is just turning a blind eye. As far as the bail, if you were a parent, you would understand that raising bail would be a priority. The family may have believed she was a flight risk, but why? Where did you read that Jodi always packed knives? To explain away the purchase of a 9 mm does not work for me. Also, she was packing her car to leave. The authorities arrested her at that point before the getaway. While you may not like prosecutors, I think being a defence attorney is really the bottom of the barrel! I am glad there is someone like Juan around putting criminals away. Jodi’s trial was a circus indeed. Does not make her any less guilty.

    1. Well, I think you are very clever. You brought up a very good point. First, everyone gets angry and everyone gets emotional in times of stress. This alone doesn’t tell us much about the capacity for murder. Seconds before the killing, all seemed peaceful and calm.

      Second, past acts of violence and aggression are normally inadmissible as evidence unless it has a direct bearing on the events of June 4th. I really don’t like this, because if I was a juror in this case, I would want to know more about what the defendant (convict) as well as the victim were like in the years leading up to the killing.

      This would be a big help in trying to decide what may or may not have happened. So little has been revealed about Travis Alexander. We know almost nothing about him.

      I am not saying Jodi’s family believed she was a flight risk. If she had the money for bail, the judge could still have denied bail if the judge considered her to be dangerous to the public or a flight risk, which the judge most certainly would have found.

      California has some of the strictest regulation of firearms in America. Jodi had to get a background check and take courses in gun safety to get her 9 mm. If she knew she was a suspect in a murder, I think she would be less likely to purchase a weapon than if she had in fact been attacked.

      Jodi was only living temporarily with her grandparents, so at some point she was going to leave, Police records indicate she was on her way to Tucson Arizona. That’s the last place she would go if she thought herself a murder suspect in Arizona. I can’t remember where I read it, but I did read that when Jodi moved previously, she took books, her journals, and some cookware with her.

      You may know that on Tuesday, Jodi made her second motion in 5 months to fire Kirk Nurmi, her lead attorney. Defense attorneys do provide a valuable service, they for the state to prove their case. Defense attorneys are allowed to come up with reasonable doubt and offer alternate scenarios and all kinds of excuses. Prosecutors are not supposed to do this. They are supposed to lead the search for truth and justice. It’s a very tough job. I know it and you can tell if you read “Spotlight on Juan Martinez”.

      You may misunderstand me, because if Jodi Arias is found guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder in a fair trial, I would have nothing to say. Fair trials happen all the time. There is one going on in Provo, Utah right now, the Dr. accused of killing his wife in the bathtub. The prosecutors are doing just fine putting away dangerous criminals, without having to resort to Juan Martinez’ highly questionable tactics.

  8. A great answer as usual, Rob.

    ”The defense was angry. They could not properly prepare their defense. They filed a complaint to the judge. This offense was punishable by up to six months in jail. The judge was very upset that his court was delayed.

    Familiar, huh! If you add 6 months to every trial he’s used misconduct he would go away for a very long time. If everyone who posts were to read the articles you write, maybe they wouldn’t post such a load of nonsense, well.. there’s hope, even if there’s only a teensy little bit..

    1. Yes, Heather, and this was a case he would end up losing, so Juan Martinez cheated even more than he usually does. Then he did the same thing he always does – counter accuse his accuser.

      Of course, Juan was provided with the best attorney to defend him, and he only had to write a note of apology.

      Although Juan has not been severely admonished for his misconduct, all the appeals court judges are familiar with his misdeeds, as his name keeps coming up citing misconduct in appeals.

  9. The crime in this country is escalating, and most of it is being committed by people who don’t want to hear the word no from their lover, wife/husband, mother/father. So much entitlement in this world, so many lies being told, where is the truth? Who is being honest? Jodi Arias? Don’t make me laugh. Travis probably did her wrong, but she was murderous when her sexual manipulations were not enough to win him over. It was all she had, her looks and her sexual abilities, and she used them fully. Travis was a good man at heart, I do believe, and his past shows that he liked women a little too much for a Mormon such as he, but he also loved people and tried to help them. He took the wares that Jodi was offering to him, but found them unfulfilling and even repugnant. When he tried to get away, she made it clear it would be hell, but now it is her hell, and she earned every second of it.

    1. I agree that people these days, especially kids are too indulged, too irresponsible, and are not made to understand the consequences of their actions. I think we can both agree on that.

      But I think Travis, because of his horrendous childhood, had serious problems. I believe that Jodi, also had serious issues because of lack of affection and love in her childhood, so she rebelled.

      I think they recognized unconsciously each other’s problems and they became locked into a very dangerous relationship that blew up.

      Jodi is the most responsible, but Travis also shares responsibility for not ending it totally, and he paid for it dearly.

      1. Oh, he tried to end it, he just wasn’t a murderer. When you have some hot chick telling you she just wants to f*** you one more time, for old times sake, it would be difficult to say no. She was the experienced one, she brought in all the sex talk and toys and lubricants and porn shots, she had played this game many times before, but this time she was playing for keeps. Too bad Travis thought he had ended it, and was doing her a favor by f***ing her one more time. She seemed more into than he did, he was just delighted to be given the opportunity, and I would have been too! You just never know, as Travis said, if you’re really dating an axe murderer. In his case, a gun and a knife. She made sure she was the last woman who would ever be with him. That scares the crap outta me.

      2. Thank-You for your comment! John, I don’t see this as being a Jodi – the – corrupter kind of deal. Travis is talking about Vegas being nothing but “shows and hoes” and “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, except Chlamydia”, and “hit a woman every now and then”, and “woman, I will beat you dead” are all things Travis said in his “comedy routine” as Eddie Snell.

        There are no toys that I ever heard of. There is no evidence she played this game many times before. In fact, Darryl doesn’t seem the type to be into these games. The anal sex kick seems to have come from Travis.

        Jodi was with Darryl 4 years with no problems. She had been in jail over 5 years with no real big problems. Only when she meets travis and the Mormons, does she have such huge problems.

        Travis was seeing multiple girlfriends before he met Jodi, earning him the name T-Dawg. He had had affairs with at least two married woman after breaking up with Jodi, which is not Jodi’s doing.

        He was a 30year-old Mormon with no steady gf or wife. Mimi, Lisa, and the long time gf Deanna, none of them wanted him, because of his behaviors.

  10. Please let me know if you’re looking for a author for your site.
    You have some really great posts and I believe I would be
    a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d really like to
    write some content for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine.
    Please blast me an email if interested. Kudos!

    1. We encourage guest articles including articles in opposition. Please give your site link so we can check it out. We do more well-researched. in depth and factually based articles than you can find on other sites.

      We also have another site, it’s nothing about Arias –, and we would welcome any guest content of any opinion on any issue there.

  11. Hi there. Terrific website. I’m wondering, though, where did you get the theme?
    Or did you devise it your-self? I’m setting up my own web-site and am shopping around for a theme as amazing as this one.

    Thanks so much.

    1. Thanks for your comment P90X3

      What do you mean by theme? “Spotlight on Law”? We are both law students. In the beginning, we were going to do other trials also. “Spotlight” was from Nurmi’s closing statement about shining a spotlight on the prosecution’s conduct.

      Do you mean “The other side of the story”. This was because no one in mainstream media would dare say anything, no matter how insignificant, favorable to Arias or the defense.

      It’s all self-devised. We started commenting on other sites. Then our answers became too long for a comment, so we made the articles for fun with no thought that anyone would ever visit the blog.

      We’ve developed our ideas by chatting with many others who have thought about this case. In that way, it’s a collaboration.

      Good luck. We are happy to help if you would like. Amanda would like to talk to you. I know that.

  12. Pingback: Free Japan
  13. This is an excellent article with lots of detail and research. And lots of facts which I personally know to be true. Well done Rob

  14. The bottom line people is Jodi is as guilty as the day is long! Mr Martinez did what he had to do to get this murderer off the streets. Can any of the Jodi supporters explain all of her lies? I watched that trial three times and she told lies everyday when she was on the stand. I am 63 yrs old and I have never known such a liar. Mr Martinez exposed all of her lies beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone claims to want justice but if you are a cute demure behaving murdereress..well, maybe not so much.
    I am pro-life and I hope she doesn’t get the death penalty but I am extremely glad that she is off the streets.
    I doubt that any higher court will overturn her conviction even if there was any prosecutorial misconduct because she is indeed guilty of every thing of which she was accused. DEAL WITH IT FOLKS!

    1. I don’t agree. Of course, if one believes Arias is guilty of 1st degree murder, then that does mean she Must have told many lies on the stand. Juan Martinez did not prove or “expose her lies beyond a reasonable doubt”. Had he done so, JA would not have so many supporters.

  15. Have you read the moments from JA’s supporters? They never comment on what Jodi did; they just bash Mr. Martinez. Some of them say things that was never brought up at trial, ie: ” Jodi was stabbing Travis in the back when he had her pinned to the floor”! That statement never came out of JA’s mouth! This happened before the ” fog” remember? Her supporters make up stuff and throw it out there and the other supporters eat it up like it was facts. I truly believe most of them never watched the trial! Her supporters are mostly horny guys who would like to experience one of her orifices! Her female supporters have deep seeded issues with men. None of them ever talk about the facts of the case. Their rhetoric is always “Juan bad, Jodi good” Yes, Rob, Mr. Martinez did prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt! And that is the very reason why she has no hope for a “new trial”. I am pro life and I hope she does not get the death penalty but she sure as heck will spend the rest of her life in prison!

    1. As for me, I don’t see Jodi Arias as attractive. In real life I would avoid the type.

      Some people are very mistaken talking about “proof of innocence” or “the back stabs prove self-defense”. What is true is that the cluster of 9 stab wounds could have been done out of self-defense. This makes more sense than the 9 stab-wounds being done offensively, there doesn’t seem to be a purpose.

      It’s not made up, it’s a possibility suggested by evidence from the crime scene/autopsy, it is not dependent on what Jodi Arias said.

      I saw the same trial as you. In my opinion, the innocence argument is over and done. Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander in a severe and vicious attack, but the WHY question has never been answered. This blog is loaded with objective facts.

      If you find an objective fact on this blog that you think is false, tell me and I’ll remove it. Some people do not want to know the facts.

  16. And another thing Rob, I have red hundreds of comments by her syncophants and not one was from a battered woman! Why is that Rob?

    1. I will take issue with a comment I don’t believe is correct, no matter what side a person is on. Many JA supporters are battered women, but Jodi Arias was not a battered woman, imo. A self-defense theory would say that she acted like a battered woman or reacted like a battered woman.

  17. Rob, I have debated Jodi Arias’ case ad nauseum. I am tired of it. However, I will commend you on your argument. It is the most cogent of all the bloggers of whom I’ve read. I still disagree with you but I do respect your thoughts. So, once again, we will agree to disagree.

  18. Pistorius? He’s too cute to go to jail!!! Nah, just kidding:) Good luck with that one. I didn’t watch the trial so I dunno nuthin!

  19. Rob,
    I have tried 3 cases against juan Martinez. If you are still working on issues surrounding mr. Martinez, please call me at 480-775-4800.
    Thanks and good luck,
    Chad Shell

    1. I will do that, Chad. I am interested to learn more, as I could not get information on ALL his cases, only the more famous, more media worthy cases.

      Basically, I have never seen this “style” in any other trial ever. It’s more than aggressive. I’m sure his tactics would not be allowed in most state’s courtrooms,and for good reason.

      If you get a chance, please take a look at “More lies and Juanipulation: Crystal Blue Persuasion.

      Thank-You for commenting! Excellent comments!

  20. “To express the sentiment that the defendant is a liar and by extension, all defense witnesses are liars also”. That statement is almost ironic if not downright insightful. It explains exactly what Martinez does and yet blames the defense team for it. I’m always fascinated by people who blame others for what they are guilty of.

    If someone on the prosecutors team deleted evidence, then by extension and by way of responsibility, Juan would be guilty of misleading the Judge, Jury and public. IF he is not aware of what his team are doing, how can he say with 100% certainty that everything else in reports given to him are accurate? This case, as it is, leaves more questions than answers and most of those questions are in regards to Martinez conduct.

    The next point, and one that really makes me laugh is when people state that Jodi Arias is a liar. That tells me they know nothing about Jodi Arias. She neither lies, nor tells the truth. Perhaps such simplicity is too complex for some people so they avoid the inner conflict by parroting the usual propaganda statement: Jodi Arias is a liar. To make such a statement is to demonstrate a lack of genuine insight. It is the sort of thing school kids do. I can’t expect them to really understand the inner workings of a person like Jodi Arias. I can only hope their children don’t develop the real mental health issues Jodi Arias presents with.

    If we limit our knowledge of this case to the information that was presented in court under the guise of evidence we will certainly tend to lean in favor of the prosecutor. However, when we objectively view information that was not presented in trial because it was ‘prejudicial to the prosecutors case’ one must ask that now famous question. WTF? In that scenario one requires some degree of expertise and proficiency in examining crime scenes and understanding the evidence and psych tests. I notice several commenters are still holding on to the ‘Truth according to Martinez’ without looking past his deceptions. Everytime I hear or read that someone believes the ‘gun was stolen and used to shoot Travis’ I just shake my head and walk away. The evidence clearly shows that was not the gun used and that in itself shows Martinez out to be a plain and simple liar. There is more to this case than was presented in court and from the tidbits I’ve uncovered myself, I can say that this case was NOT ready to go to trial when it did.

    Travis Alexander was NOT the man he presented himself to be and that will become much more evident as time goes on. As well, Jodi Arias is not the monster the media would have us believe. My intention here is to leave a comment. Not to write a book and NOT to provide evidence of any sort. Any and all evidence I’ve uncovered has gone straight to the proper authorities, not to support pages or anyone who is not in a position to deal with the evidence in relation to what it is. Finally I want to make one point very clear. Evidence does NOT lie. People do. I also have no interest in anyone’s comments regarding what I’ve stated here.

    1. Thanks for your comments, Billy Hagstrom, I’ve always found you to be the one person who’s opinions match mine the most. You are highly qualified on the psychology side to give those opinions, too.

      Yes, Detective Flores warned Jodi Arias at the interview upon her arrest that Juan Martinez would “paint” her as such and such. We have tried to show in “The Mirror Crack’d” and “Crystal Blue Persuasion” exactly how he did that and with little reference to the major evidence.

      He did even better than that as he managed to paint nearly all of Arias’ major witnesses with the same broad brush. We have shown in “Spotlight on Juan Martinez” that he often counter-charges or blames the defense when his behavior is attacked. This way, I knew when he started trying to blame the defense for the porn found on Travis’ computer that the allegation of porn had to be true.

      The manipulation of evidence is nothing new in Maricopa County, and here we see that it may be still going on. It’s just unbelievable that in this day and age, with the importance of “electronic media” to evidence, such as smart phones and computers, that somehow Maricopa County doesn’t seem to have even rudimentary protocols for the chain of evidence and the custody of evidence.

      I too have come to my beliefs about this case from evidence that was not presented at trial. This does in fact show problems with the crime scene not backing the prosecution theory as well as some startling discoveries about Travis Alexander. When people see, as you say, that neither Travis nor Jodi were as presented at trial, a new realization emerges that is much closer to the truth.

      I have been saying all along that the jury in the guilt phase made the correct decision based on what they were presented with in court, but the problem was that what they weren’t presented with the entire truth. As usual, you say it better than me, Billy. Please feel free to comment any time. Thanks again!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s