UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) Case No. 20-cr-00497-1

)

MARY MARTINEZ, ) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Mary Martinez (“Martinez”) asks the Court for prior approval of funds to retain a 

forensic accounting expert and defense investigator pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 

3006A(e) (“CJA”). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part Martinez’s motion [46].

Background

Defendant Martinez was charged with ten counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1343. The Government alleges that Martinez fraudulently advertised and offered financial services

to ten individuals looking to purchase homes. According to the Government, Martinez 

misappropriated those individuals’ funds for her own benefit. Pro bono counsel was engaged by 

Martinez for representation prior to her arraignment. Through discovery, the Government 

tendered thousands of pages of financial documents to Defendant. (Dkt. 46 at ¶ 10). Pro bono 

counsel for Martinez states that his then firm spent over $30,000 to retain a financial expert to 

review this discovery. (Id. at ¶ 3). Defense counsel subsequently moved firms. While his new firm 

will allow counsel to continue representation of Martinez in her upcoming trial, it will not pay for a 

forensic accounting expert or private investigator. 

Legal Standards

Section 3006A(e) of the CJA provides funds for indigent defendants to obtain investigative 

or expert services necessary for adequate representation. The movant must show that use of the 

Case: 1:20-cr-00497 Document #: 50 Filed: 11/23/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:147
2

expert is necessary, not merely possible. United States v. De La Cruz-Cuevas, 281 F. App’x 581, 583 

(7th Cir. 2008). To make this determination, the Court asks whether a “reasonable attorney would 

engage such services for a client having the independent financial means to pay for them.” United 

States v. Cravens, 275 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2001).

The CJA caps fees for other services at $2,700 “except in extraordinary circumstances.” 

United States v. Alkaramla, 872 F.3d 532, 534 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(3)); see also 

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 7 Defender Services, Part A Guidelines for Administering the CJA 

and Related Statutes, Chapter 3: Authorization and Payment for Investigative, Expert, or Other 

Services, § 310.20.10 (setting maximum at $2,700 after January 1, 2021). In its application, the

defense should provide detailed information pertaining to the services requested, including cost. See 

United States v. Knox, 540 F.3d 708, 718 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of CJA funds because 

Defendant did not provide sufficient details for the services request or estimated expenses). 

Discussion

Martinez fails to demonstrate the necessity of a forensic accounting expert in her case. 

Martinez argues that an expert must trace the alleged victims’ funds to show that she did not use the 

funds for personal benefit, but rather for business expenses. However, Defense counsel already 

paid a financial expert $30,000 to review financial documents. Not knowing how the second 

expert’s analysis would differ, the Court cannot find that a reasonable attorney would hire an 

additional financial expert. See United States v. McGee, 408 F.3d 966, 978–79 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming 

denial of CJA funds for an expert that would provide cumulative evidence).

Furthermore, Martinez does not provide estimated in her application. Without information 

as to the length and depth of analysis needed or the necessity for seemingly cumulative evidence, the 

Court will not provide a blank check for services. In addition, though defense counsel maintains it 

took on representation of Martinez pro bono due to her inability to afford counsel, the Court has not 

Case: 1:20-cr-00497 Document #: 50 Filed: 11/23/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:148
3

made a financial eligibility determination under the CJA. Martinez fails to sufficiently answer open 

questions about her finances. Despite her financial status, Martinez has made payments upwards of 

$100,000 in the past year toward early restitution in this case. (Dkt. 46 at ¶ 4). Defense argues that 

these payments increase her financial burden, however, this is a burden voluntarily taken on by 

Defendant pre-trial. In addition, although Martinez maintains that she has been unable to sell her 

real property totaling approximately $410,000, the Court highlights the significant assets in her 

possession. (Dkt. 46-1).

The Court understands that defense counsel wishes to proceed in his representation of 

Defendant and that the timing of his transition to a new firm poses unique challenges to his pro bono

practice. However, the new firm approved continued representation after Defendant made clear her 

intention to forgo the scheduled change of plea and pursue a jury trial. As evidenced by the prior 

firm’s payment of the financial expert, in general, pro bono representation includes reasonable 

associated costs. While the Court wishes to encourage further pro bono representation of defendants, 

this particular application lacks support for the broad financial assistance requested. 

That said, the Court does not intend economic challenges to delay further progress in this 

case. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant up to the CJA case compensation maximum, $2,700,

for expenses necessary to defense representation. 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part Martinez’s Ex Parte Application for 

Authorization to Hire a Defense Investigator and a Forensic Accounting Expert [46]. The Court 

authorizes Defendant’s use of up to $2,700 in CJA funds.

Case: 1:20-cr-00497 Document #: 50 Filed: 11/23/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:149
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 11/23/21 

____________________________

 SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN

 United States District Court Judge 

Case: 1:20-cr-00497 Document #: 50 Filed: 11/23/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:150