Martinez's mother says Olt violating victims' rights

Martinez's mother says Olt violating victims' rights

August 9, 2001

By Aspen C. Emmett
Journal Staff Writer

The mother of a slain Cortez teen read the gruesome details of her son’s autopsy in the newspaper rather than being informed about it by the district attorney’s office, she recently complained to the Governor’s Victims’ Compensation and Assistance Coordinating Committee in Denver.

Pauline Mitchell, the mother of Fred Martinez Jr., also alleged that District Attorney Joe Olt failed to alert her of other important developments in her son’s case and has therefore violated her rights as a victim.

"The District Attorney’s office has denied me the right to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity and the right to be informed of and present for all critical stages of the criminal justice process," Mitchell wrote in the formal Request of Enforcement of Compliance with the Requirements of the Crime Victims Constitutional Amendment.

Martinez, 16, was found dead June 21 south of Cortez. He had reportedly been struck with a blunt object on the night of June 16.

On July 4, 18-year-old Shaun Murphy of Farmington was arrested in connection with Martinez’s murder, and on July 9, he was arraigned in Montezuma County Court on a second-degree murder charge.

Present at Murphy’s hearing were his mother, grandmother, daughter and girlfriend. There was no one representing Martinez’s family in the courtroom — but it wasn’t because the dead boy’s family didn’t want to be there, the family says.

According to the complaint, Mitchell was never informed of the hearing and again had to read about the developments in the local newspaper.

"This pains me, as I could not bear witness for my dear son and be present for such an important part of obtaining justice for my son’s brutal murder," she wrote.

However, Olt told the Journal he did not inform her because he himself did not know about the hearing until the last minute.

"She wasn’t informed because we didn’t know," Olt explained. "It was all confused — where it was, what time it was and all that. We tried to find out that morning and we couldn’t find a definitive answer anywhere.

"I went to court and I was waiting there and all of a sudden we were arraigning him. I had an idea we would — but I had no time, no nothing. The cops knew about it too, but my office wasn’t informed and I just happened to be there."

The responsibility of informing the DA’s office of court proceedings falls on the court, Olt stated.

"As far as I know, they didn’t call us," he said. "Nobody knew where, what, when, why, how. With no information there’s nothing we can do."

Olt did know about the hearing ahead of time, a court clerk told the Journal.

"Joe Olt was informed Mr. Murphy was going to be arraigned," the clerk said. "But just because he knew doesn’t mean his staff was informed. So the staff that informs the victims may not have known about it. But he knew — he was told."

Olt also explained that Mitchell wasn’t alerted about the autopsy results because he wasn’t in town when they arrived July 23.

"I didn’t see them until Aug. 2," he said. "We got them in the office July 23, but I wasn’t here."

Olt said there was no other way for Mitchell to be told of the results because of his office policy.

"It comes to me, I look at it and then it would go on," he said.

Olt also disputed Mitchell’s claim that she was told the district attorney’s office would make sure she was the first to know about the autopsy results.

"They made an allegation that I absolutely told them they would be the first to be informed," Olt said. "There is no way they would be the first to be informed about anything, because it just doesn’t work that way. They get informed as we get informed.

"If there was something in the report that could not be told to them because of investigative purposes, we would not have informed her of it at all. What I told her was . . . I would make sure she would get a copy of the report, and she did."

Olt maintained his office has always done its best to keep Mitchell informed of what is happening in her son’s homicide case.

"She’s always been advised," he said. "In fact we re-advised her of the preliminary hearing. She’s always known about everything we’ve known about. We don’t normally miss."

Carolyn Wagner, vice president of PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered People) has been assisting Mitchell in her correspondence with Olt’s office and law enforcement. She said the goal of the complaint is to ensure that Mitchell’s rights as a victim are upheld in the future.

"The story here is the heartbreak of the mother and not giving consideration," Wagner told the Journal. "What we can all look at is how we can treat other people and be more kind and considerate of the pain others might be feeling."

Also assisting Mitchell is her personally appointed victim’s advocate, Alan Cook.

"We hope this is a wake-up call," Cook said. "There are people affected by the DA’s choices — or rather non-choices in this case. He seems not to have very much sensitivity."