Judicial & Social Injustices

Prosecutor Juan Martinez
* Interrupted witnesses. Favorite method: “Did I ask you xyz???” when, in actuality, he did just ask xyz but apparently didn’t like the answer he was getting so needed to put a stop to it.
* Asked witnesses confusing questions and then ridiculed and belittled the witness if they asked for clarification. [See examples of this tactic here]
* Intentionally misled the jury into believing blood from Travis’ right ear (which could only have happened while Travis was alive) came not from a gunshot to the right temple but instead from a stab to the chest.
* In a display of demagoguery, intentionally left a gruesome autopsy photo in full view of the jury during a five minute sidebar relative to the defense’s objection to the photo. And the jury was left with the impression that that was Jodi’s handiwork. (Click here to see this stunt and note the drama taking place in the courtroom during the long sidebar, particularly the drama playing out in the gallery, all meant for the jury to witness and absorb.)
* Objected incessantly (even during closing arguments), not on legal grounds but as a deliberate attempt to interrupt flow.
* Disclosed the name of a witness under seal three times within five minutes, even after admonishments by the judge.
* Screamed at witnesses.
* Insulted witnesses.
* Insulted defense counsel.
* Threw tantrums.
* Hid evidence.
* Threw evidence.
* Twisted evidence.
* “Win at all cost – to hell with truth” mentality.
* To the jury: “Just because there’s no record of previous crimes, doesn’t mean she hasn’t committed any.
* Implied: “Ladies and gentleman, she did not prove her innocence so you must find her guilty.

For additional details regarding Martinez’s atrocious behavior read the bar charges brought against him by the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice on 22 December 2015 which, in September 2016, resulted in a one year probation placed upon Martinez. The bar complaint begins with an introduction that states: “In blunt pursuit of criminal convictions, long-time prosecutor Juan Martinex repeatedly engaged in material violation of the most basic tenants of the Ethical Rules. He has lacked candor to tribunals, unfairly treated opposing parties and counsel, and prejudiced the administration of justice. Disturbingly, much of his misconduct has been in capital cases.” And if you scroll down to Section VI (page 20 of 28), you will see the litany of charges regarding his misconduct in Jodi’s case. (And that’s after 17 pages describing all the crap he’s pulled in other cases.)

Judge Sherry Stephens
* Did not sequester the jury in this high-profile case, allowing them to go home nightly to significant others who were no doubt following the case, most likely on HLN. But Judge Stephens wants us to believe that in four months all of those significant others said not a single word. (Right. And in what universe might she be living?)
* Declared that calling Travis “the victim” throughout this self-defense trial was not prejudicial to the defense.
* Did not put a stop to Martinez’s blatant abuse of witnesses and disrespect of defense counsel.
* Allowed Travis’ family members to “testify” from the front row within feet of the jury, rolling their eyes, making faces, loud sighs, mouthing “yeah, right”, any and all of this if they didn’t agree with a defense witness. (They might as well have been sending notes to the jury.) This was testimony the defense had no chance to cross-examine, in direct violation of the Constitution which guarantees the accused the right to confront her accusers.

Dr. Kevin Horn
* Contradicted his own written medical examiner’s report while under oath, apparently so it would fit with the prosecution’s newest theory. Perjury?
* On the witness stand he continually equivocated his answers with “could haves”, “might haves” and a lot of “ifs”, misleading the jury into believing he was stating facts about Travis. [See examples of this double-talk here.]

Detective Esteban Flores
* Det. Flores, in an interview with 48 Hours, stated that the evidence indicated the gunshot was first.
* In 2009 Det. Flores was allowed to testify on Dr. Horn’s behalf at the Chronis death penalty hearing (over the objections of the defense, based on the fact that Det. Flores was not qualified to speak for a medical examiner), where Flores stated that the gunshot was first and Travis may not have been immediately incapacitated. Based on that testimony, the judge determined there were aggravating circumstances (cruelty) that warranted seeking the death penalty.
* Now Flores wants to claim that it was all just a big misunderstanding??? And, contrary to his testimony at the Chronis hearing, where he stated, under oath, that he was giving Dr. Horn’s opinion, he now says that was not the case and he was actually giving his own opinion. No matter how you slice it, this is called perjury.

* Went home nightly to family members who were most likely following the trial on HLN, were exposed constantly to court of public opinion.
* Jurors admitted that during the long delays they spent their time on their electronic devices. Would this have been allowed if they had been sequestered? If not, why should it be allowed in this case? Especially in this case!!!
* Snarky questions from jurors indicated they had already decided she was guilty before they heard all of the evidence.
* One juror mouthed “I’m sorry” to Travis’ siblings when the jury failed to come back with the death penalty, obviously feeling bad about disappointing these fine upstanding folks who were literally praying to God to have Jodi killed.
* Most of the jurors from both trials partied with the Alexander family and Juan Martinez after both trials ended. (There is certainly nothing illegal about this but it just seems so unsavory and contrary to the spirit of the justice system.)

Lifetime Network
* While the trial was still in progress, produced a totally fabricated story (supposedly “Based on a True Story”) and, within weeks after the guilty verdict, broadcast it for public consumption as well as for prospective jurors in her upcoming sentencing retrial.
* Has re-run the movie numerous times since, even within just a few days of her sentencing retrial.
* Click here to see what Lifetime got wrong.

* Decided Jodi was guilty before trial began.
* Implicit mantra: “Guilty until proven innocent.”
* Cherry-picked evidence to validate their opinions alone and presented it as news (see the definition of “propaganda” below).
* Mock juries, fed unsubstantiated hearsay as “facts”, convicting her night after night after night.
* Indicated that anyone who spoke up for Jodi deserved to be bullied and threatened.
* Interviewed only people who agreed with their predetermined verdict and demeaned anyone who didn’t.
* TV internist diagnosing her as a “psychopath”.
* “Screaming head” (Velez-Mitchell) diagnosing her as a “pathological liar”.
* Nightly “Bombshells!” from Nancy Grace
* Confirmation bias + ratings + money = Yellow Journalism

Propaganda (per Wikipedia) is “a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda.”

Reasonable Doubt

<<< Jodi the Stalker   |  Closing Arguments >>>