A Snohomish County Superior Court judge denied a motion to dismiss the case against Carlos Alberto Martinez, a former Monroe Police Department sergeant charged with sex crimes, during a hearing Wednesday, Oct. 7, at the Snohomish County Courthouse.
Martinez, 61, is facing six counts of sexual misconduct with a minor. Prosecutors allege that Martinez used his position as a police officer to cultivate a sexual relationship with a female minor, who was 14 when the abuse first began. Martinez, a Monroe police officer for 20 years, reportedly became acquainted with the victim in 2003, while serving as a DARE officer in the Monroe School District.
Prosecutors allege Martinez, who was married at the time, began grooming the young girl for the purposes of a sexual relationship.
Martinez was forced into retirement in 2009, after the Monroe Police Department began an internal investigation over allegations of a domestic dispute between Martinez and his wife. He was placed on administrative leave and allowed to resign from the police department. He moved to Texas that summer with alleged victim, who was then over 18.
The two lived together for two years, until they separated in August 2011, according to police documents. They continued to see each other until November 2011, when the alleged victim went to Texas authorities to report he was physically abusing her.
According to police documents, a search warrant was issued on Dec. 15, 2011, after the victim told police she had been involved with Martinez since she was in the fifth grade and that he had collected sexually explicit photographs and video of her when she was a minor and stored them on his computer.
Texas opted not to file criminal charges, and referred the case to Washington. Charges were filed in Snohomish County Superior Court on Aug. 30, 2013.
Defense attorney Mark Mestel filed a motion to dismiss the case on Sept. 15, 2015, after Snohomish County Deputy Prosecutor Lisa Paul said she observed attorney-client emails while examining documents obtained in a search warrant. The emails in question were exchanged by Martinez and civil lawyers during his 2010 divorce.
Attorney-client communications are protected by Washington state privileged communications laws, which allow free and open communication between an attorney and their client.
"The disregard of the attorney-client privilege violates the defendant's constitutional right to counsel,GÇ¥ wrote Mestel. "Recognizing that matters are privileged and then disregarding that privilege because the prosecutor did not feel that it related directly to this case ignores the right of the defendant to counsel.GÇ¥
The emails were among more than 6,000 emails seized by the state as the result of a search warrant served on Martinez's computers and Google accounts. Paul was doing a cursory examination of the emails on Sept. 10, when she noticed there appeared to be attorney-client privileged emails included in the messages. She ceased viewing the emails and informed Mestel in a Sept. 11 email.
In Paul's declaration and response to the motion to dismiss, the deputy prosecutor reported making repeated attempts to confirm with the defense whether attorney-client messages were included in the bulk of data collected by the state during the execution of the search warrant. She alleged the defense intentionally withheld knowledge of the existence of the attorney-client emails, in order to create a "land mine.GÇ¥
The defendant knew his Gmail records would be disclosed as a part of the search warrant and should have notified the state, Paul wrote.
"The defendant should at a minimum have notified the state that the Google records contained attorney-client privileged emails but chose not to do so. The state repeatedly asked the defense to advise whether the Google results contained privileged information, and it is clear that the defense was aware it did,GÇ¥ Paul wrote in her declaration.
She referred to the maneuver as a "deliberate strategyGÇ¥ to undermine the case.
In order to proceed, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was no prejudice to the defendant as a result of the intrusion. Judge Michael Downes said he was satisfied the state had done so and commented on Paul's credibility.
"The court finds that she is credible,GÇ¥ Downes said.
Downes said Paul had been "very forthrightGÇ¥ throughout the proceedings, and he was satisfied there was no prejudice to the defendant and her cursory review of the emails had not led to any new legal theories. He accepted her statement that she read no attorney-client messages.
"The court has been impressed with Miss Paul's honesty throughout these hearings,GÇ¥ Downes said.
Martinez is being charged with two counts of voyeurism, two counts of child molestation in the third degree, rape of a child in the third degree and possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Jury selection will begin on Oct. 20.Photo by Chris Hendrickson This file photo shows Carlos Martinez during a hearing in 2013.Martinez
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment