INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT, PART 4. (30:05- 43:53)
(Tricia indicates back from break, on to the final segment. T: “I could talk with Mr.M for hours and hours,” recommends JM’s book again).
T- Before we went to break I asked you a question from one of our members—(What evidence was considered too prejudicial to be admitted, and thus was never allowed into trial, and why? ) Can you answer that, at all?
JM- Well, first of all, prejudicial evidence, the way I see it, is evidence that is unfair to a defendant that might lead to a jury reaching a verdict not based on the evidence, but on emotion, if you will. So that really is what prejudicial evidence is.
I’ll give you an example. Throughout the trial I was not presenting everything, or pushing the envelope, getting near the line, saying I’ll let the judge decide that.
I actually thought about the evidence I wanted to present in those terms. I’ll give you an example that really illustrates that point. There was a phone call by Arias, between her and Mr. Alexander, unbeknownst to him, where they were engaged in phone sex. I didn’t introduce that.
Under the rules, those statements are admissible, if you will, and I could have presented and talked about them. But in my view, they didn’t add anything to the case, and the fact that two individuals who are involved in some kind of relationship masturbate to the sound of each other’s voices really to me would have focused the case on the sexual aspects of the case, and this was not about sex. This was about a knife and a gun that were used.
And so, if they focus so much on the sex, I thought that perhaps would inflame their passions unfairly and perhaps they would decide this case because they thought that a woman or a man shouldn’t be involved in these kinds of things. So I chose not to introduce it. But it was ultimately introduced to the defendant by the defense, and of course in that case I was able to question the defendant about it.
I sort of policed myself, if you will, in terms of what evidence I put in front of the jury, and if I thought it was unduly prejudicial, or unfairly prejudicial, or the jury would look at that and say I’m going to vote guilty just because I didn’t like her, or I’m going to vote to acquit because I didn’t like him, then that’s the kind of evidence that I wouldn’t seek to present. And the example I’ve given you was the phone call. I never sought to introduce it, it was introduced by the defense, and their defense apparently was that they wanted to make this as salacious as they possibly could, so the focus on the case became the sexual trysts between these two, or the involvement between these two, so that in minute detail we knew everything about every single possible encounter that they had ever had. So, that’s what prejudicial evidence is, and I chose not to introduce a lot of it. (33:40).
T: It’s interesting that the defense chose it. I guess they thought that would put Travis in a bad light, and somehow that would make it OK that JA murdered him. I just never understood it. But Nurmi, what could the guy do? (Tricia and JM laugh). I mean, they had the worst possible client.
JM- One of the things that overlooks is that these were two young individuals that were involved in a sexual relationship, and the last time I checked there wasn’t anything illegal or untoward about two individuals engaging in that conduct.
T- Exactly. And as you say, they were young. Of course, when you get to my age it’s a totally different story (JM laughing) but that’s an entirely different show.
JM- I didn’t realize you were 30 already.
T- Oh God, I love you (JM laughing), I already knew I loved you, now I love you even more, if that’s possible.
T-Now, OK, here’s another question from one of our great members. If you could clarify, when is it you believe JA started to plan to murder Travis?
JM-She actually began the planning aspect of it, and we can differentiate that from premeditation, because premeditation can be planning, she actually began the planning at the end of May. And she took some steps then, by calling an ex-boyfriend to borrow two 5-gallon gas cans, for a total of 10 gallons, she called him to borrow those, and told him she was going to Mesa. The other thing she did was that she staged a burglary, at the home where she was living, and stole, or took, a 25 caliber handgun that she ultimately used to shoot Travis in the face.
The actual premeditation, the actual thinking about the killing, began in the end of May. She took many many steps for her plan. For example, instead of renting a car in Yreka, she went 90 miles away, to Redding (CA). Obviously there was less of a chance for her to be seen, or recognized, if she rented it at an airport, rather than in Yreka, which is a very small town.
She changed her hair color on the way, from blonde to brunette. Everyone in Mesa knew her as a blonde, so, if anyone happened to see her coming in or out of Travis’s home they would say it was a brunette, again, casting doubts that it was her. And she took the license plate off the rental car when she got there, so no one could identify the car. Of course, she told the police when she originally went to rent the car they offered her a red one, she didn’t want that because that stood out to police and she didn’t want to stand out to police, so she took many, many steps to carry out her plan, and the plan actually started at the end of May, of 2008. (36.33)
T- And, let’s talk about that timeframe, with the emails. It seems like, we don’t know for sure, but it appears that Travis found out something that JA had done, perhaps that she had recorded their phone call, or threatened to blackmail him, something that made Travis very, very angry. That’s what happened in May, right (JM-sure). Are we any closer to knowing what the actual event was that caused this big blow up?
JM- No, and whoever asked that question zeroed in on something that was problematic for me. He actually said some things that were very offensive. I decided that I wasn’t going to defend them, because they were written, but I did want to put them in context. What are the reasons why he was saying it? There’s a little bit of a hint of that, when he says to her she’s a liar, you’ve caused me more pain than the death of my father, so he just kept saying over and over, I want you to admit you are a liar. She obviously would never admit what she lied about, and he did use that offensive language.
T- Wow. So again, we’re not sure, but it has to be something pretty awful, and we’ll never know unless JA, you know, her head cracks open and she decides to tell the truth (JM laughs).
JM-If she tells us something, obviously, based on prior conduct, it’s probably suspect.
T- Exactly.
T- Can you offer any insight into why JA’s jail records have not been released, and were turned over to the prosecutor’s office for investigation? Is that true, first of all, and if so, why haven’t they been released?
JM- I don’t really know anything about that. If I did, I’d let you know. That wasn’t part of the prosecution. I read in the paper that there was an issue regarding that, but rather than speculate about something I don’t know anything about and show my ignorance, I’m just going to have to defer and say I really don’t know anything about it.
T- and that’s OK, you’re allowed to defer on this program, you only get two, but you’re allowed.
JM- Thank you.
T- What about the content of the 90 plus pictures undeleted on the memory stick on Travis’s camera? Will we ever see those or know what those were? (38:52).
JM- Well, the Mesa police department has those. They were just pictures of his dog Napoleon, just run of the mill normal things that people do throughout the day. There were pictures of him doing certain things, so they were just photographs taken of him during more idyllic times, when things were much more peaceful. The ones that stand out for me are the pictures he took of his dog.
T- Did you ask his family to be there every day? Was that something you wanted, or did they just show up? Did Travis’s family just come every day?
JM- I never want to set the courtroom for a jury. I think that asking the family to show up is sort of a way to set the tone in the courtroom and I don’t believe that is something I should do. The decision of whether to be in the courtroom or not was theirs, and theirs’s alone.
T- And they were there every day for Travis. (JM: they were). As I said before, it was just absolutely heartbreaking.
T- Now, we have something from someone called IntheGarden, and it’s not a question, but this person just wanted to give you a big thank you for your hard work in getting justice, and for some great lines in the trial, her favorite, “it’s your fog.” Where did that line come from?
JM- (Laughs). I don’t script anything. As you saw, I don’t use notes when I’m at trial, especially during cross examination. And the reason for that is, I’m not sure if I’ve ever been asked, but the reason I don’t use notes is that I want to be looking at the person on the witness stand. If I’m focused on reading, I’m going to miss the cues of what direction to go. With that one, it’s not something I prepared, I just know San Francisco has a lot of fog, so that’s where that came from, it was just something that seemed appropriate at the time. (40:52).
T- Well, it caught a lot of people’s attention, that’s for sure.
T-We have about 3 minutes left. I’m just going to go rapid-fire through some of these questions.
JM- Sure.
T- Do you know who leaked the full list of jurors, and isn’t it illegal to do so. Do you know who leaked it, and is it illegal? Is that person in trouble?
JM- It is illegal, and I have no idea who did it.
T- Hmm. That was so shocking to me when that happened, and nothing was ever done.
T- Were you disappointed in LWOP, or were you hoping for the DP?
JM- I never get disappointed in whatever the sentence is. The jury has spoken. I’m not going to worry about if’s and but’s and what may have happened in the past. There’s other work I have to do, so no, I can’t say that I was disappointed. I just look forward.
T- The trial prep that you had to do, watching videos of 48 Hours, how did all of that shape, how did that help you? We have about 2 minutes left.
JM- It was absolutely indispensable. Had I not watched all of those videos, had I not sat and done this myself, I suspect that Arias PROBABLY would have gotten the better of me during cross examination. Possibly it could have resulted in a lesser included offense, or perhaps, even an acquittal. So it was absolutely indispensable that I did that.
T- Well, it certainly did work, and you really, and again, our hats off to you, Mr. Martinez, for everything you have done for Travis Alexander, and for his family.
In closing, is there anything else you’d like to offer us, any words of wisdom, are you having any other book signings coming up, what’s happening?
JM- I do have a book signing in Scottsdale AZ on April 9, which is Saturday, if people want to come out and we can sit and chat, that would be nice. I appreciate the questions that are asked in programs, but in person it’s certainly just as enjoyable, and I like to meet the people.
T- Any hints of Hollywood nipping at your heels? Perhaps turning this into a movie at some point? Your book?
JM- People talk about it, I’m not sure we’re there yet, but it’s an interesting story, (T- it is), of the antagonist and the protagonist that are involved, and I’m not either. I’m talking about Travis, and about JA. I just happen to be a second fiddle kind of actor, so there’s a lot there that could be explored in a movie.
T- Mr. Juan Martinez, thank you so much, Pick up his book- Conviction. Thank you to all the great WS members, and to you out there for listening.
(Tricia indicates back from break, on to the final segment. T: “I could talk with Mr.M for hours and hours,” recommends JM’s book again).
T- Before we went to break I asked you a question from one of our members—(What evidence was considered too prejudicial to be admitted, and thus was never allowed into trial, and why? ) Can you answer that, at all?
JM- Well, first of all, prejudicial evidence, the way I see it, is evidence that is unfair to a defendant that might lead to a jury reaching a verdict not based on the evidence, but on emotion, if you will. So that really is what prejudicial evidence is.
I’ll give you an example. Throughout the trial I was not presenting everything, or pushing the envelope, getting near the line, saying I’ll let the judge decide that.
I actually thought about the evidence I wanted to present in those terms. I’ll give you an example that really illustrates that point. There was a phone call by Arias, between her and Mr. Alexander, unbeknownst to him, where they were engaged in phone sex. I didn’t introduce that.
Under the rules, those statements are admissible, if you will, and I could have presented and talked about them. But in my view, they didn’t add anything to the case, and the fact that two individuals who are involved in some kind of relationship masturbate to the sound of each other’s voices really to me would have focused the case on the sexual aspects of the case, and this was not about sex. This was about a knife and a gun that were used.
And so, if they focus so much on the sex, I thought that perhaps would inflame their passions unfairly and perhaps they would decide this case because they thought that a woman or a man shouldn’t be involved in these kinds of things. So I chose not to introduce it. But it was ultimately introduced to the defendant by the defense, and of course in that case I was able to question the defendant about it.
I sort of policed myself, if you will, in terms of what evidence I put in front of the jury, and if I thought it was unduly prejudicial, or unfairly prejudicial, or the jury would look at that and say I’m going to vote guilty just because I didn’t like her, or I’m going to vote to acquit because I didn’t like him, then that’s the kind of evidence that I wouldn’t seek to present. And the example I’ve given you was the phone call. I never sought to introduce it, it was introduced by the defense, and their defense apparently was that they wanted to make this as salacious as they possibly could, so the focus on the case became the sexual trysts between these two, or the involvement between these two, so that in minute detail we knew everything about every single possible encounter that they had ever had. So, that’s what prejudicial evidence is, and I chose not to introduce a lot of it. (33:40).
T: It’s interesting that the defense chose it. I guess they thought that would put Travis in a bad light, and somehow that would make it OK that JA murdered him. I just never understood it. But Nurmi, what could the guy do? (Tricia and JM laugh). I mean, they had the worst possible client.
JM- One of the things that overlooks is that these were two young individuals that were involved in a sexual relationship, and the last time I checked there wasn’t anything illegal or untoward about two individuals engaging in that conduct.
T- Exactly. And as you say, they were young. Of course, when you get to my age it’s a totally different story (JM laughing) but that’s an entirely different show.
JM- I didn’t realize you were 30 already.
T- Oh God, I love you (JM laughing), I already knew I loved you, now I love you even more, if that’s possible.
T-Now, OK, here’s another question from one of our great members. If you could clarify, when is it you believe JA started to plan to murder Travis?
JM-She actually began the planning aspect of it, and we can differentiate that from premeditation, because premeditation can be planning, she actually began the planning at the end of May. And she took some steps then, by calling an ex-boyfriend to borrow two 5-gallon gas cans, for a total of 10 gallons, she called him to borrow those, and told him she was going to Mesa. The other thing she did was that she staged a burglary, at the home where she was living, and stole, or took, a 25 caliber handgun that she ultimately used to shoot Travis in the face.
The actual premeditation, the actual thinking about the killing, began in the end of May. She took many many steps for her plan. For example, instead of renting a car in Yreka, she went 90 miles away, to Redding (CA). Obviously there was less of a chance for her to be seen, or recognized, if she rented it at an airport, rather than in Yreka, which is a very small town.
She changed her hair color on the way, from blonde to brunette. Everyone in Mesa knew her as a blonde, so, if anyone happened to see her coming in or out of Travis’s home they would say it was a brunette, again, casting doubts that it was her. And she took the license plate off the rental car when she got there, so no one could identify the car. Of course, she told the police when she originally went to rent the car they offered her a red one, she didn’t want that because that stood out to police and she didn’t want to stand out to police, so she took many, many steps to carry out her plan, and the plan actually started at the end of May, of 2008. (36.33)
T- And, let’s talk about that timeframe, with the emails. It seems like, we don’t know for sure, but it appears that Travis found out something that JA had done, perhaps that she had recorded their phone call, or threatened to blackmail him, something that made Travis very, very angry. That’s what happened in May, right (JM-sure). Are we any closer to knowing what the actual event was that caused this big blow up?
JM- No, and whoever asked that question zeroed in on something that was problematic for me. He actually said some things that were very offensive. I decided that I wasn’t going to defend them, because they were written, but I did want to put them in context. What are the reasons why he was saying it? There’s a little bit of a hint of that, when he says to her she’s a liar, you’ve caused me more pain than the death of my father, so he just kept saying over and over, I want you to admit you are a liar. She obviously would never admit what she lied about, and he did use that offensive language.
T- Wow. So again, we’re not sure, but it has to be something pretty awful, and we’ll never know unless JA, you know, her head cracks open and she decides to tell the truth (JM laughs).
JM-If she tells us something, obviously, based on prior conduct, it’s probably suspect.
T- Exactly.
T- Can you offer any insight into why JA’s jail records have not been released, and were turned over to the prosecutor’s office for investigation? Is that true, first of all, and if so, why haven’t they been released?
JM- I don’t really know anything about that. If I did, I’d let you know. That wasn’t part of the prosecution. I read in the paper that there was an issue regarding that, but rather than speculate about something I don’t know anything about and show my ignorance, I’m just going to have to defer and say I really don’t know anything about it.
T- and that’s OK, you’re allowed to defer on this program, you only get two, but you’re allowed.
JM- Thank you.
T- What about the content of the 90 plus pictures undeleted on the memory stick on Travis’s camera? Will we ever see those or know what those were? (38:52).
JM- Well, the Mesa police department has those. They were just pictures of his dog Napoleon, just run of the mill normal things that people do throughout the day. There were pictures of him doing certain things, so they were just photographs taken of him during more idyllic times, when things were much more peaceful. The ones that stand out for me are the pictures he took of his dog.
T- Did you ask his family to be there every day? Was that something you wanted, or did they just show up? Did Travis’s family just come every day?
JM- I never want to set the courtroom for a jury. I think that asking the family to show up is sort of a way to set the tone in the courtroom and I don’t believe that is something I should do. The decision of whether to be in the courtroom or not was theirs, and theirs’s alone.
T- And they were there every day for Travis. (JM: they were). As I said before, it was just absolutely heartbreaking.
T- Now, we have something from someone called IntheGarden, and it’s not a question, but this person just wanted to give you a big thank you for your hard work in getting justice, and for some great lines in the trial, her favorite, “it’s your fog.” Where did that line come from?
JM- (Laughs). I don’t script anything. As you saw, I don’t use notes when I’m at trial, especially during cross examination. And the reason for that is, I’m not sure if I’ve ever been asked, but the reason I don’t use notes is that I want to be looking at the person on the witness stand. If I’m focused on reading, I’m going to miss the cues of what direction to go. With that one, it’s not something I prepared, I just know San Francisco has a lot of fog, so that’s where that came from, it was just something that seemed appropriate at the time. (40:52).
T- Well, it caught a lot of people’s attention, that’s for sure.
T-We have about 3 minutes left. I’m just going to go rapid-fire through some of these questions.
JM- Sure.
T- Do you know who leaked the full list of jurors, and isn’t it illegal to do so. Do you know who leaked it, and is it illegal? Is that person in trouble?
JM- It is illegal, and I have no idea who did it.
T- Hmm. That was so shocking to me when that happened, and nothing was ever done.
T- Were you disappointed in LWOP, or were you hoping for the DP?
JM- I never get disappointed in whatever the sentence is. The jury has spoken. I’m not going to worry about if’s and but’s and what may have happened in the past. There’s other work I have to do, so no, I can’t say that I was disappointed. I just look forward.
T- The trial prep that you had to do, watching videos of 48 Hours, how did all of that shape, how did that help you? We have about 2 minutes left.
JM- It was absolutely indispensable. Had I not watched all of those videos, had I not sat and done this myself, I suspect that Arias PROBABLY would have gotten the better of me during cross examination. Possibly it could have resulted in a lesser included offense, or perhaps, even an acquittal. So it was absolutely indispensable that I did that.
T- Well, it certainly did work, and you really, and again, our hats off to you, Mr. Martinez, for everything you have done for Travis Alexander, and for his family.
In closing, is there anything else you’d like to offer us, any words of wisdom, are you having any other book signings coming up, what’s happening?
JM- I do have a book signing in Scottsdale AZ on April 9, which is Saturday, if people want to come out and we can sit and chat, that would be nice. I appreciate the questions that are asked in programs, but in person it’s certainly just as enjoyable, and I like to meet the people.
T- Any hints of Hollywood nipping at your heels? Perhaps turning this into a movie at some point? Your book?
JM- People talk about it, I’m not sure we’re there yet, but it’s an interesting story, (T- it is), of the antagonist and the protagonist that are involved, and I’m not either. I’m talking about Travis, and about JA. I just happen to be a second fiddle kind of actor, so there’s a lot there that could be explored in a movie.
T- Mr. Juan Martinez, thank you so much, Pick up his book- Conviction. Thank you to all the great WS members, and to you out there for listening.
