Bill Montgomery explains why Juan Martinez's 'professional standards' records are sealed

Michael Kiefer
The Republic | azcentral.com
The prosecutor: Deputy County Attorney Juan Martinez, a prosecutor known for his gamesmanship, asked the jury to sentence Jodi Arias to death. She was given a sentence of a natural life in prison. His conduct during the trial came under scrutiny of defense attorneys when he was shown in the media posing for pictures with trial spectators outside the courthouse. He wrote a book about the trial and later faced charges against him alleging some of the contents of his book were sealed by court order. The charges were later dismissed, but he still faces various other ethics charges pending against him.

Corrections & Clarifications: A previous version of this story misidentified which entity supervises the licensing and discipline of attorneys in Arizona. The state Supreme Court handles those duties.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery says his celebrity prosecutor, Juan Martinez, was disciplined as the result of an in-house "professional standards" investigation. 

But he described both the offense and the punishment without really explaining either in a news conference Tuesday and in emails to The Arizona Republic.

Montgomery described the nature of the discipline as "administrative and training," and said only that it was for violating office policy.

His comments came after The Republic published a story this month about how his office didn't comply with a request for records made in August on the investigation.

Montgomery had more than 800 documents related to the investigation sent to the State Bar of Arizona, which may issue ethics charges against Martinez for divulging information about a juror and misrepresenting his personal relations with a dismissed juror and two amateur trial bloggers during the two Jodi Arias murder trials in 2013 and 2015.

One of those bloggers now works in Montgomery's office and was present at Tuesday's news conference, although she did not speak.

The Arizona Supreme Court licenses and disciplines attorneys in Arizona. The State Bar investigates reports of attorney misconduct.

An order from the presiding disciplinary judge, appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court in the case against Martinez, states that the materials were sealed at the request of the County Attorney's Office. Montgomery on Tuesday said repeatedly that the judge's statement was "not entirely true."

According to a subpoena that Montgomery's office provided to The Republic on Tuesday, the Bar requested in April a number of documents — including phone records, visitation logs and other communications with the women Martinez was linked to. Also requested by the Bar were: "Any and all complaints, responses, transcripts, recordings, notes, findings, memorandum, letters, sanctions or documents related to any internal investigation of allegations of misconduct of any nature by Juan Martinez during his tenure with the MCAO."

READ MORE: County's report into prosecutor's conduct sealed

The County Attorney's Office did not respond in detail to questions asked before the story was published Dec. 2.

On Tuesday, Montgomery's public-information officer, Amanda Steele, wrote in an email: "After discussing MCAO’s concerns with the Arizona State Bar, MCAO and the State Bar agreed that a protective order would eliminate the need for time intensive redaction efforts allowing for MCAO to quickly provide the subpoenaed records."

Records requested in August

The Republic became aware of the County Attorney's Office investigation into Martinez's behavior in August and made a public-records request for any reports. The Republic also asked for a description of the blogger's office duties.

Neither request was fulfilled. The Republic learned late last month that the documents had been sent to the State Bar in September. 

Several questions were posed to the County Attorney's Office. Among them: 

  • Why was the report not disclosable under state statute?
  • Why would the disciplinary judge have jurisdiction over a County Attorney's Office investigation?
  • What was the nature of the discipline and what was it for?

The office did not respond before publication of the first story but provided additional information Tuesday.

The explanation from Steele's email:

“At the beginning of  April 2018, the Arizona State Bar subpoenaed the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for material relating to bar complaints filed against (Deputy County Attorney) Juan Martinez. MCAO complied with the subpoena and is cooperating with the Arizona State Bar’s review. We are limited by the protective order from explaining more, however if you have been told or have seen records that are under that protective order then there is a cause for concern that the order was violated."

And, "On June 6, 2018, the (Presiding Disciplinary Judge) issued a protective order for material MCAO provided in response to the subpoena, and which the State Bar provided to MCAO in early September, along with a copy of the motion for the protective order, when it followed up on the request for the internal investigation. According to an order provided by you, the State Bar received a subsequent protective order on September 20, 2018, which MCAO views as a supplemental order based on the Bar’s previous motion. If the September 20 order was the result of a new motion filed by the bar, MCAO does not have a copy and has not seen it."

Juan Martinez: No comment

Martinez would not comment on the Bar investigation. Asked Tuesday if he was planning to settle the case against him — as suggested by the Bar attorney handling the case — or planning to retire, he told The Republic, "I think you know I am represented by counsel, so you can direct questions about your life or whatever to him."

Montgomery also wouldn't comment on the Bar investigation.

"While we do our best to remain transparent on matters involving the State Bar, MCAO must protect the due process rights of the bar complaint respondent and not interfere through public comment with any investigation," said the official response from his office.

And Montgomery — both in the email from his public-information officer and in his statements to the media on Tuesday — suggested he was not concerned about any impending Bar charges, noting that an earlier case against Martinez had been "resoundingly rejected by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge."

Montgomery said that he has not denied the public-records request.

The records will be available as soon as the Bar case is resolved, Steele's email said, "unless inspection or disclosure of the records or information in the records is contrary to law."