In 2012, the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, issued its opinion in Martinez v. Ryan that the ineffective assistance by an appellate lawyer can excuse a failure to raise a constitutional violation of the incompetence and ineffectiveness of trial counsel in seeking a new, fair trial.    

Almost fifty years earlier, in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Gideon v. Wainwright that the 6^th Amendment guarantees a right to the assistance of counsel to defendants facing felony charges in state court. Then, in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Strickland v. Washington that defense counsel cannot be asleep on the job and must adhere to a standard of reasonableness.

Like many Arizona Justice Project cases, the process of getting to this U.S. Supreme Court victory was long. In 2003, ASU law professor Bob Bartels, began representing Luis Martinez on behalf of the Arizona Justice Project.  In the review and investigation of the Martinez case, Bartels developed evidence demonstrating the ineffectiveness of Martinez’s trial counsel and post-conviction counsel for failing to present evidence and expert testimony that would have demonstrated his innocence.

The case was litigated in the Arizona state courts, where we lost each step of the way.  Bartels then took the case into federal court and again was denied relief by the District Court and by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted review and opened its chamber to one of the most important and fundamental constitutional questions addressed in criminal proceedings.  Bob Bartels and AJP attorneys traveled to Washington D.C. where Bartels argued the case.  

The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Martinez’s favor (7 to 2).