(and BTW I haven't gone back to check what the result of the ethics complaint against him regarding the Arias trial was).
Fourth, last I heard JM was on paid administrative leave from MCAO. It may be that he faced internal discipline even WHILE getting raises etc.--often in government work these things are handled on two separate "tracks."
About those bar complaints against JM. A few were dismissed and faded away; two principal complaints remain before various Bar committees/counsel.
This (as usual) long post gives a chronology of those 2 complaints. Complaint 1, (regular typeface), the Bar's appeal of, is currently under advisement by the AZ SC. Formal disciplinary hearings on Complaint 2 were scheduled to take place next month (April).
Complaint 1 was the first significant complaint filed against JM after the trial,
and remains the only complaint related to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by JM at trial.
Complaint 2, filed by Karen Clark Esq. on behalf of Arias, was a hodgepodge of allegations that, simplified, accuse JM's of having sexual relationships with trial bloggers to gain publicity, and that he provided one blogger in particular with sealed and/or confidential trial information, including the identity of juror 17, the holdout juror of the penalty retrial).
IMO, the Specially Concurring opinion by COA Justice Jones was aimed in no small part directly at those currently considering the Bar complaints against JM.
From Jones’ opinion:
I write separately to further elaborate upon a matter that cannot, in my mind, be left underemphasized or simply passed over: that is the persistent, pervasive, inappropriate and unprofessional conduct of the State’s attorney, Juan Martinez.
(….) Yet, here we are, confronted with a prosecutor whose repeated misconduct toward the superior court, other attorneys, principals, and witnesses in a criminal case was not only abhorrent to the rules of professional conduct — and clearly unnecessary to obtain a conviction — but broadcast over and over again, hour after hour each day, throughout a sixty-seven-day trial and the non-stop hours of nationwide media coverage that followed.
The prosecutor’s behavior throughout this trial was a clear abuse of his ethical duties, its scope and extent now exposed and quantified through the filing of this opinion. With that, our prior supreme court decisions direct us to simply report the wayward prosecutor to the State Bar for possible sanctions.
The Court does so; nevertheless, I am left dissatisfied by the serious questions raised by the prosecutor’s misconduct, which has previously been raised with the State Bar yet remains unanswered for.
While I am comforted by the fact that the jury, presented with the evidence and properly instructed, was able to see past the sickening, childish conduct of the State’s attorney, perform their duties as sworn, and apply their common sense and understanding to the task at hand, this is no substitute for the professional responsibility each lawyer must exercise when appearing in any Arizona court.
With the issue of the propriety of Arias’ conviction now having been put to rest, and the conduct of the prosecutor having been reported, I am hopeful that the viability and enforceability of our Rules of Professional Conduct will be reasserted and legitimized such that we, Arizona’s attorneys, judges, and courts, can be back about the business of pursuing justice in the manner Arizonans have a right to expect.
------------------------------
Bar Complaints. etc. chronology.
December 2015. Complaint 1 filed by Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, an association of nearly 500 defense attorneys. Complaint listed allegations of unethical behavior by JM over a 10-year span.
The State Bar whittled it down to allegations from five capital-murder cases Martinez tried, those of:
Cicero Beemon, in which Martinez compared the actions of Beemon’s Jewish defense attorney to those of Adolf Hitler.
Cory Morris, a serial killer who murdered five prostitutes, in which Martinez asked jurors how they would like to be strangled by the defendant.
Michael Gallardo, in which Martinez was told not to repeat that the father of the victim could never again call his son, but did so anyway; it famously prompted discussion in the Arizona Supreme Court of “the conduct of the prosecutor.”
Shawn Lynch, in which Martinez again asked jurors to imagine themselves being murdered by the defendant, specifically having their throats slit. Lynch’s death sentence was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016.
Jodi Arias, for telling defense attorney Jennifer Willmott during a sidebar at the judge’s bench that if he were married to Willmott he would “F--king want to kill myself.” He later told Willmott she should go back to law school.
Link:
Juan Martinez, prosecutor in Jodi Arias case, cleared in State Bar ethics case
----------------------------
September 2016. The Bar’s Probable Cause Committee rules that JM has violated 3 ethic rules:
+engaged in unprofessional conduct;
+used means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden any other person, or using methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person by, among other things, improperly attacking the defendant;
+engaged in professional misconduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
JM was admonished and ordered to be put on probation for one year. The order of admonition did not refer to specific cases Martinez prosecuted. (The link below includes the Bar’s official statement).
“The State Bar said that the admonition was issued "for inappropriate statements made by Mr. Martinez during various trials or other legal proceedings. In some instances, these statements were found to be unprofessional or otherwise improper by the Arizona Supreme Court but did not require a reversal of the underlying criminal cases."
Bar admonishes Arias prosecutor Juan Martinez
----------------------------------
October 2016. JM appealed the Bar’s ruling and requested a full hearing before the Disciplinary Committee.
((February 2017. Karen Clark, attorney for Arias, files Bar Complaint #2.))
October 2017. Complaint #1 dismissed. (From the AZ Republic, a glimpse into the hearing):
The Bar was represented by attorney Craig Henley; JM, by Scott Rhodes, known as one of the best attorney-discipline defense attorneys in Arizona.
Henley brought defense attorneys for Beemon, Lynch and Arias to the stand, but his questions to them were riddled by objections from Rhodes, and Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O’Neill held them to "yes" and "no" answers.
Former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton also testified for the Bar as an expert witness. Charlton denounced Martinez’s behavior as “unethical and inappropriate” and, upon cross-examination by Rhodes, admitted that he uses Martinez as an example of how not to act in the law school classes he teaches.
Rhodes called a single witness, former Arizona Chief Supreme Court Justice Thomas Zlaket, who dismissed Martinez’s aggressive courtroom behavior as typical of competitive lawyers.
Though other witnesses were held to short answers, Zlaket took the opportunity to wax nostalgic, saying Martinez was sorry for his mistakes.
“I’ve done the same, and every trial lawyer I’ve known has too, and I’ve known the best,” Zlaket said.
Rhodes then rested his case.
O’Neill and two disciplinary panelists left the hearing room for less than a minute.
Then they re-entered, and O’Neill announced that they had dismissed the complaint.
-------------------------------------
Dec 2017. The Bar files an appeal with the AZSC. (Complaint 1).
Jan 2018. The AZSC orders the Disciplinary Committee to produce a finding of the facts and law upon which they based their dismissal.
((Jan 2018. The Bar dismisses Complaint 2 filed by Karen Clark.))
((February 2018. Clark appeals the dismissal of Bar Charge #2, asserting that the Bar had abused it's discretion by not forwarding the complaint to the Probable Cause Committee.)
((March 2018. Complaint #2 reinstated by Bar's Probable Cause Committee. At some point in the next few months Clark adds on another slew of charges, all of which relate to alleged sexual harassment by JM, of both MCAO and Superior Court employees. ))
Sept. 2018. The Committee’s findings (#1) are filed as a Supplemental.
March 2019. JM’s reply brief filed; all briefs from Bar and JM now completed.
((March 2019. The Probable Cause Committee issues formal charges against JM relating to Complaint #2: divulging confidential information, being untruthful to Bar investigators, and sexual harassment of MCAO employees and of a Superior Court court reporter.))
April 2019. Amicus curiae briefs in support of the Bar’s appeal of the dismissal of complaint #1 are filed by the AZ ACLU, the AZLU, AZ attorneys for Criminal Justice, and the AZ Justice Project.
((August 2019. The Bar dismisses charges of Complaint #2 relating to alleged sexual harassment by JM of MCAO employees. The allegation of harassment by JM of a court reporter remains. ))
((September 2019. Karen Clark files yet another complaint against JM, her second attempt to have JM sanctioned by the Bar for publishing his book. She also files a complaint against Bill Montgomery, for inadequate supervision of JM, and for permitting JM to write his book. Montgomery is seated on the AZ Supreme Court a few days after Clark filed her complaint against him. The Bar delegated the book related/supervisory charges against JM and Montgomery to a AZ SC Special Counsel, who, to the best of my knowledge, still has the complaints under consideration. ))
September 2019. JM reassigned to Auto Theft division at MCAO.
October 30, 2019. The AZSC takes the Bar’s appeal (complaint #1) under advisement, having received all briefs and JM’s disciplinary record.
February 7, 2020. JM placed on administrative leave by MCAO.
February 21, 2020. JM fired from MCAO.
The dismissal letter notes his exceptional service/ record at trial, but asserts that JM did not take his discipline by Montgomery seriously enough (citing the fact that JM appealed his performance review and salary back in 2018 (!!) as evidence of this. The letter also says that MCAO can't be expected to arrange to keep JM far enough away from MCAO employees who fear (no evidence it happened) that JM might retaliate against them for their complaints of sexual harassment.
March 2, 2020. JM filed appeal of his dismissal from MCAO (civil service protections).
:
