AFS Cinema
'Chronicle' Makes Scurrilous Attacks on Martinez
RECEIVED Tue., Feb. 16, 2010
Dear Editor,
Your article “The Baird Successor: Crowded Field Jockeys for 299th” [News, Feb. 12] contains scurrilous attacks on candidate Leonard Martinez.
I have not supported any candidate in this race. But your unsourced, unexplained comments that Martinez “has been criticized for, at best, inconsistent defense work” and that “his legal work has met with sharp criticism at times” [“'Chronicle' Endorsements,” News, Feb. 12] is so lopsidedly unfair that I cannot but question your motives and your competence.
Where are the specifics? Who made these criticisms? What cases were criticized and why? Your terse but damning comments are devoid of these basic journalistic requirements.
Unlike many supposed criminal defense lawyers, Mr. Martinez really fights for his clients. Of course he has made mistakes. You cannot defend the toughest cases and not make mistakes. He has also won major victories. And let’s remember that it is usually the felony judges who have appointed Mr. Martinez to these hard cases.
Going back through the Chronicle archives, there appears to be one instance, the Olvera Jimenez case in 2005, when the Chronicle reported that an appellate lawyer argued that Mr. Martinez was ineffective at trial [“Babysitter Denied New Trial in Paper Towel Case,” News, Nov. 18, 2005] (in one other reported instance, the Delamora case, it did not appear from the Chronicle article that he had made any error). In the Olvera Jimenez case, the appellate lawyer pointed to a single mistake by Martinez.
More than any other field of law, criminal defense is filled with land mines set to shatter the client and his attorney at the slightest wrong move. Our criminal justice system is rigged to make it enormously difficult to obtain an acquittal or a reversal, and it does so in part through many highly elaborate, technical requirements imposed only upon the defense. Under this system, it is unfortunately all too common for good defense lawyers to make mistakes. This is especially true in homicides and other major felony cases – the kind Leonard Martinez takes on, but where most lawyers fear to tread.
I must also wonder why the Chronicle did not seek to find negative comments on the other three candidates. Are you saying that Mr. Martinez is the only flawed candidate in the race?
As for Martinez, imperfect he undoubtedly is. But when I hear he is defending someone accused of a really bad felony, I know the defendant has a chance for a “not guilty” verdict, which is more than I can say about most defense attorneys.
Your article “The Baird Successor: Crowded Field Jockeys for 299th” [News, Feb. 12] contains scurrilous attacks on candidate Leonard Martinez.
I have not supported any candidate in this race. But your unsourced, unexplained comments that Martinez “has been criticized for, at best, inconsistent defense work” and that “his legal work has met with sharp criticism at times” [“'Chronicle' Endorsements,” News, Feb. 12] is so lopsidedly unfair that I cannot but question your motives and your competence.
Where are the specifics? Who made these criticisms? What cases were criticized and why? Your terse but damning comments are devoid of these basic journalistic requirements.
Unlike many supposed criminal defense lawyers, Mr. Martinez really fights for his clients. Of course he has made mistakes. You cannot defend the toughest cases and not make mistakes. He has also won major victories. And let’s remember that it is usually the felony judges who have appointed Mr. Martinez to these hard cases.
Going back through the Chronicle archives, there appears to be one instance, the Olvera Jimenez case in 2005, when the Chronicle reported that an appellate lawyer argued that Mr. Martinez was ineffective at trial [“Babysitter Denied New Trial in Paper Towel Case,” News, Nov. 18, 2005] (in one other reported instance, the Delamora case, it did not appear from the Chronicle article that he had made any error). In the Olvera Jimenez case, the appellate lawyer pointed to a single mistake by Martinez.
More than any other field of law, criminal defense is filled with land mines set to shatter the client and his attorney at the slightest wrong move. Our criminal justice system is rigged to make it enormously difficult to obtain an acquittal or a reversal, and it does so in part through many highly elaborate, technical requirements imposed only upon the defense. Under this system, it is unfortunately all too common for good defense lawyers to make mistakes. This is especially true in homicides and other major felony cases – the kind Leonard Martinez takes on, but where most lawyers fear to tread.
I must also wonder why the Chronicle did not seek to find negative comments on the other three candidates. Are you saying that Mr. Martinez is the only flawed candidate in the race?
As for Martinez, imperfect he undoubtedly is. But when I hear he is defending someone accused of a really bad felony, I know the defendant has a chance for a “not guilty” verdict, which is more than I can say about most defense attorneys.
Donald J. McCarthy