Opinion ID: 6341049
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disputed Testimony

Text: Martinez now seeks discovery to dispute two pieces of evidence—Detective Beatty’s testimony that the Monte Carlo had a “punched ignition,” and Oscar Fryer’s testimony that Martinez had told him that he was “not going back to jail.” This evidence was used at trial to help prove that Martinez killed Officer Martin with premeditation. Martinez’s defense counsel argued lack of premeditation as an alternative defense in closing argument. Martinez’s primary defenses throughout trial, however, were mistaken identity and failure of the prosecution to carry its burden of proof. In his instant motion, Martinez argued to the district court, and now argues 8 MARTINEZ V. SHINN to us, that the evidence he seeks under Rule 60(b)(6) would show that he did not kill Officer Martin with premeditation and that he is therefore actually innocent of first-degree murder. See Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 336 (1992).
At trial, the prosecution called as a witness Detective Douglas Beatty, a Maricopa County homicide detective who was assigned to investigate Officer Martin’s death. The court permitted the State to recall Detective Beatty to the stand to question him about the condition of the ignition of the Monte Carlo when it was recovered in California, in order to help prove that Martinez knew that it was stolen. Detective Beatty testified that when he attempted to turn on the recovered Monte Carlo with keys found in its glove compartment, he discovered that “the ignition switch to the Monte Carlo was missing.” He described the ignition switch as “a hollow cavity” that could be turned on with “some sort of instrument,” such as a screwdriver. The prosecution indirectly referred to Detective Beatty’s “punched” ignition testimony once during its rebuttal closing argument. The prosecution used the testimony to rehabilitate a witness who had identified Martinez as purchasing gas at the Circle K shortly before the shooting. The State referred to the Monte Carlo as stolen multiple times, in its opening statement and closing arguments, as part of its argument that Martinez had premeditated Officer Martin’s killing. After Martinez’s trial in Arizona, he was tried in California for killing the clerk in the Mini-Mart. Prosecutors in the California case gave to Martinez files that they had MARTINEZ V. SHINN 9 obtained from the Arizona prosecutors. Those files included notes and a report from Ricci Cooksey, a California forensic examiner. Martinez argues that Cooksey’s report “failed to note a punched ignition when the Monte Carlo was impounded at the time of Martinez’s arrest.” Cooksey’s notes included the names and phone numbers of “Doug Beatty,” of the “Maricopa Co. Sheriff,” and of the lead prosecutor, “Bob Shutz [sic],” in Martinez’s Arizona case. Martinez argues that these notes are evidence that Cooksey spoke to Arizona prosecutors prior to the Arizona trial. The California prosecutors also gave Martinez a photograph of the Monte Carlo showing an intact ignition. Martinez argues that this photograph shows that the ignition was not “punched” at the time of the crime, and that the photograph was “previously suppressed” by the Arizona prosecutors.
Also at trial, the prosecution called Oscar Fryer as a witness to testify about his conversation with Martinez at the Globe carwash prior to Officer Martin’s murder. Fryer testified that Martinez had told him there was a warrant out for his arrest, that he was on probation, that he had a gun, and that if he was stopped by police, “he wasn’t going back to jail.” In its closing argument, the prosecution repeatedly referred to Fryer’s testimony, emphasizing Martinez’s statement that “he wasn’t going back to jail,” as central evidence of both his motive and premeditation. The prosecution also emphasized two additional pieces of evidence showing premeditation: (1) the time between the traffic stop and the shooting, and (2) the four times that 10 MARTINEZ V. SHINN Officer Martin was shot. That additional evidence was (and is) undisputed. Seven years after Martinez’s Arizona trial, Fryer spoke about his testimony to defense investigator Gerald Monahan, who had been appointed to work on Martinez’s subsequent California case. Monahan declares that Fryer told him that he “was high on methamphetamine at the time he testified against Mr. Martinez at trial”; that “it was his opinion that Mr. Martinez would shoot it out with police if he were pulled over by police, rather than be arrested”; and that “Mr. Martinez did not tell Mr. Fryer that he would shoot it out with police if he were pulled over.” Martinez argues that Fryer’s statements, as reported by Monahan, support his claim that he did not premeditate the murder of Officer Martin, and that he is therefore actually innocent of the death penalty.