Could Juan Martinez fail to pass Go?

The crazy soap opera that is the Jodi Arias trial rumbles on, with revelations that Juan Martinez, the “PitBull” prosecutor has been conducting an affair with Jen Wood, one half of the “Trial Divas”. Comments were left on a blog stating:

Anonymous July 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM
Hey Sandra, this may be old news to you but I will take a shot anyway. Did you know that Teflon Juan and Mrs Trial Diva/Diaries Jen Wood are having an affair? It has been going on for about a year. This upstanding honest man is cheating on his lady with a married woman and Jen is cheating on her husband. On tonights spree she is no longer wearing her wedding ring. No wonder she gets so many scoops huh. This all came out when her ex business partners cell got stolen a couple weeks ago. Lots of screen shots out there of Jen admitting she loves Juan. Caused quite a twitter stir and fight between some at one time twitter friends, Jens camp bullied some who defended the ex business partner. No one denied it and now all seems hush hush. Just thought you might be interested.

Anonymous July 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Oh and if I knew how to contact you I would send you the screen shots of Jen’s texts to Sharee. That is why Sharee ended the partnership by the way and she made Jen refund donations because people were paying for her to meet up with Juan. I am just sick of everyone thinking Juan is some sort of God. He by cheating on his lady and with a married woman in my opinion makes him no better than some of the people he prosecutes who have cheated.

Subsequently, the screen shots were posted, and I confirmed with Sharee** that the story was correct, so there is little doubt that Juan has indeed committed adultery.

Historically, adultery has been viewed as a serious crime, in the Old Testament we find

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Moreover Sharia law to this day indicates this punishment, and according to this article, in some countries it is regularly carried out:

Stoning to death for adultery has been a historical tradition in Islam that goes to the days of Islam’s birth and continues to this day in some Muslim countries, although many Muslim countries have abandoned this barbaric form of punishments due to Western secular-democratic influence. Stoning-to-death for adultery is a legal form of punishment in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Muslim-dominated northern Nigeria, Taleban-rule Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Islamists-controlled region of Somalia. Indonesia’s Aceh province legalized stoning to death of adulterers in 2009.

In Sharia-ruled Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, stoning being a form of legal punishment, offenders are killed by stoning on a regular basis, but those cases get little media attention to the outside world. Stoning adulterers and/or fornicators to death or orders to do so have also been reported in countries like the Sudan, Turkey, Nigeria, and Pakistan, perpetrated extra-judicially upon fatwa by local imams and village courts. In 1997, 23 Islamic clerics in Bangladesh demanded that former president Hussain Muhammad Ershad and his mistress of 14 years, Mrs Mosharraf, be publicly stoned to death for adultery.

However, in the New Testament, Jesus famously advocated against capital punishment for adultery, saying “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

But what of the law in Arizona? Perhaps surprisingly, adultery is still a crime. As recently as 2012, the Daily Mail claimed that “‘Cheating’ wife could face jail as husband urges police to enforce Arizona adultery law”. And here we find

13-1408. Adultery; classification; punishment; limitation on prosecution

A. A married person who has sexual intercourse with another than his or her spouse, and an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person not his or her spouse, commits adultery and is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. When the act is committed between parties only one of whom is married, both shall be punished.

B. No prosecution for adultery shall be commenced except upon complaint of the husband or wife

So it turns out that if Jen Wood’s husband were to make a complaint, Juan Martinez could in theory be punished. In practice, it is very unlikely that will happen, but nevertheless the law does recognise that adultery is an offence, damaging to marriage and children.

Melissa Murray, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley wrote in 2012

“Now we live in an age when sex is not limited to marriage and laws are slowly responding to that,” she said. “But we still love marriage. Nobody is going to say adultery is O.K.”

Apologists for Juan Martinez may seek to place the blame on the woman, but the Go_to_Jailancient law and Arizona law make it clear that  both parties are guilty. I suspect that Juan Martinez will “Pass Go” and will not go straight to jail. Nevertheless it is in my opinion indicative of his general character, which was shown during the circus trial of Jodi, and this raises additional doubts about the safety of Jodi’s conviction. If a man lies and cheats in his private life, what may he do in public? This mirrors the argument Juan made at trial:

And I would only have to point out as far as the May 10th, 2008 conversation in terms of showing that she has no problems lying on the telephone where she says well yeah, I was faking it and you know what she said she was faking, even though you heard her squealing like a cat. No, no, no that’s just me faking it and you know why? Because I need two hands, that’s why she was faking it. Okay, if you can lie on May 10th of 2008 on the telephone to Mr. Alexander, what makes us think that you can’t lie about what you and he talked about on June 3rd, 2008?

However Jodi’s lie was told for the benefit of Travis Alexander, to bring him sexual pleasure. The lies that Juan must have told in his private life are of a different nature.

The issue of Juan Martinez’ conduct would normally not be my concern, however this is a serious business. Jodi has been wrongly convicted of first degree murder, and Juan Martinez and the State of Arizona are again seeking the death penalty. Adultery, stealing another man’s wife, destroying a family, is the act of an unprincipled, dishonest and selfish person. His conduct deserves public exposure and condemnation.

See also:

** Here is how my conversation with Sharee ( Trial Queen )  went:

16/07/2014 15:43 George Barwood
Is all this true: … ?

That is you split from Jen Wood because she had an affair with Juan.

“That is why Sharee ended the partnership by the way and she made Jen refund donations because people were paying for her to meet up with Juan.”

is what someone said anonymously.

If true, I think you acted rather honourably there, well done. I just wanted to confirm it.

Trial Queen 16/07/2014 15:59
I did split with Jen for this reason. I also did offer refunds for people after I found out. Thank you for your support, I appreciate it. I tried to work it out before we split, but my reputation, image and everything else was on the line. It was unfortunate but necessary and I don’t regret it.


13 thoughts on “Could Juan Martinez fail to pass Go?”

  1. Exactly GB ! His lack of personal discipline & morals is a reflection of what he really is…. He does not belong in the legal profession…

    1. You may be right, I am not a lawyer. Wikipedia states:
      “In the United States, laws vary from state to state. As of 2014, adultery is a criminal offense in 21 states.”

      The referenced article states:

      In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual activity between consenting adults is legal, and state laws banning homosexual sodomy are unconstitutional.

      Whether the Lawrence case applies to anti-adultery laws remains “an open question,” Murray says, and the continued existence of these laws “raise very important privacy issues.”

      1. Its not illegal in Juan Martinez’ situation. The only times professionally this may cause problems would be in situations presenting conflict of interest. Such as if Mr Martinez was in a relationship with someone employed by the defense attorneys, or personally by the judge for instance. Nothing written here proves he was in a relationship with this woman and even if he was coukd only and would only be called into question if he released private documents from the case or sealed documents, documents uncovered by his office but not used at trial , ect. Also if he is in fact dating Jen, it may not be known or be public that she and her husband are seperated and or divorced. Or also that his relationship may be over as well. This all sounds very subjective and more like gossip.

      2. K. Garrison
        An illegal act is an illegal act ( though there is perhaps some doubt on the law ) – nobody is above the law. However considering that Mrs Wood reports Mr Martinez’ trials, and has a substantial following on social media, Martinez’ conduct suggests at least an “appearance of impropriety”. I have sent an email to the Arizona bar, a copy of which you can see here:

  2. It’s not so much that adultery has happened, it is the deception and double standard. The lies, the coverup the issues of ethical integrity and substance of character, or rather, lack of (in the case of Juan Martinez). If he is capable of such deception, and we all know he is, it only stands to reason that his leaking of information to HLN will become common knowledge (more than it is now). I’m saying that if a person has committed a crime, but has not been charged with a crime, he (or she) is still a criminal. – Juan Martinez (a direct quote from Juan himself)

    1. Yes, very good point. It was while arguing that Jodi Arias’s lack of a criminal record prior to June 2008 is not a mitigating factor.
      It also suggests Juan Martinez may have been trying to gain an improper advantage, by means of an intimate relationship with Jen Wood, who has a substantial following on social media, and who reports on Juan’s cases.

  3. Juan’s conduct could very well fall under professional conduct rules. Also, it appears as if he may have been trying to influence his image and jury pools through his association with Jen Wood, who is a trial watcher/tweeter with almost 3,000 followers and growing. It may not be a crime, but it certainly highly unethical at the least. It’s just another black on the the “justice system” in Maricopa County, Arizona.

  4. It is worrisome that this may be going on because as has been stated Jen covers and has been covering a trial all summer that Juan is prosecuting. It’s the Hulsey trial which is in the penalty phase now but if she is indeed having an affair with Martinez how much impropriety has happened, Juan tries to come off as a paragon of virtue when in fact he has a terrible reputation for just such things as this

  5. No one here has given proof that any law was broken, that any affair has even taken place. Just because she reports on his cases proves nothing. None of you have mentioned even reading from her web site. I did. There are MANY trials discussed there from MANY diffrent states MANY different prosecutors. Are there photos of them together having dinner? In transit? Divorce filings are also public info except for the information contained in them if minor children are involved. Has anyone located divorce papers? If so, has her husband lodged as part of his grievences and show cause for filing that an adulterous affair has taken place? In most staes now that can bring action of the judge placing custody of the children, if any, with the other parent. Again, this is all conjecture.

  6. Also Mr Barwood, the law regarding homosexualuality and adultery that still exist in 21 states are never used. The adultery laws come into play when adultery if minor children are involved, and the parent in question is proven to have allowed their love interest to stay overnight in the home, or live in a home with the new partner in front of the children. Depending on the state and each individual situation, a judge often has latitude to remove the children from that parent and place with the other parent, or order a child welfare investigation or both. Otherwise, those laws never come into play.
    Thank you,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s