In the Matter of Juan M Martinez, SB-17-0081-AP

Background

Juan M. Martinez, long‑time Maricopa County prosecutor (admitted 1984), was investigated for conduct in five capital cases (Morris, Beemon, Gallardo, Lynch II, Arias) spanning ~2005–2012.
The Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee found probable cause that Martinez violated Supreme Court Rule 41(g) and ERs 4.4(a) and 8.4(d); Martinez demanded formal proceedings.
A disciplinary panel initially dismissed the Bar’s complaint; this Court remanded for supplemental findings; on review the Court considered the panel’s conclusions and the Bar’s appeal.
The Court reaffirmed prosecutors’ special duties (minister of justice) and clarified Rule 41(g) must be read disjunctively and ER 8.4(d) can apply independently of other rule violations.
It held Martinez did not violate Rule 41(g) or ER 4.4(a), but did violate ER 8.4(d) based on repeated, negligent appeals to jurors’ emotions and disregard for sustained objections in Morris, Gallardo, and Lynch II.
The Court imposed a reprimand (Bar’s requested sanction), noting negligent repetition, pattern, substantial experience, absence of dishonest motive, and that this was Martinez’s first discipline.

Issues

Issue	Bar's Argument	Martinez's Argument	Held
Whether Martinez violated Rule 41(g) (avoid unprofessional conduct; do not advance facts prejudicial to honor/reputation)	Morris, Beemon, Arias comments were unprofessional and violated Rule 41(g)	Rule vague as applied; Bar failed to identify which Oath/Creed duties were violated; panel’s notice insufficient	No violation — comments were inappropriate but, in context, not unprofessional conduct under Rule 41(g)
Whether Martinez violated ER 4.4(a) (must not use means to embarrass, delay, burden others)	In Beemon, pursuing the 1984 robbery at aggravation and bench insistence had no purpose but to embarrass/burden defendant	He legitimately sought to rebut perceived deception and could use the conviction in aggravation; panel lacked proof of improper motive	No violation — Bar failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Martinez acted to embarrass/delay/burden
Whether Martinez violated ER 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)	Repeated jury appeals to fear/sympathy and disregard of sustained objections were prejudicial and violated ER 8.4(d)	Much of the conduct was prosecutorial error that did not equate to ethical misconduct; some comments were isolated or addressed by trial remedies	Yes — violated ER 8.4(d) for negligent, repeated improper emotional appeals and persistence after objections in Morris, Gallardo, Lynch II; not violated in Beemon
Appropriate sanction for ER 8.4(d) violation	Reprimand is appropriate given pattern, multiple offenses, experience; no dishonest motive	Argued conduct did not constitute ethical misconduct	Reprimand imposed (first sanction; deterrence and protection of public emphasized)

Key Cases Cited

Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98 (Ariz. 1984) (prosecutor’s duty to seek justice, not merely convictions)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1935) (prosecutor must not "strike foul blows")
State v. Comer, 165 Ariz. 413 (Ariz. 1990) (prohibition on arguments that appeal to jurors' fears or passions)
State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 (Ariz. 2007) (appellate criticism of Martinez’s "smelling pleasure" and singling out jurors)
State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560 (Ariz. 2010) (court found improper appeals and repetition after sustained objections)
State v. Lynch, 225 Ariz. 27 (Ariz. 2010) (penalty‑phase remand decision)
State v. Lynch, 238 Ariz. 84 (Ariz. 2015) (Lynch II; appellate evaluation of Martinez’s retrial conduct)
In re Alexander, 232 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2013) (clear and convincing burden; standards for sanctions)
In re Clark, 207 Ariz. 414 (Ariz. 2004) (ER 8.4(d) can be violated independently; injury/potential injury standard)
In re Phillips, 226 Ariz. 112 (Ariz. 2010) (consideration of mental state in sanctioning)