Maritza Martinez: Candidate Profile

Note: Answers provided have not been edited for grammar, misspellings or typos. In some instances, candidate claims that could not be immediately verified have been omitted. Jump to:BioKey IssuesQA Bio City: ChicagoWebsite: http://www.MaritzaMartinezForJudge.comOffice sought: 11th Subcircuit (O'Brien vacancy)Age: 46Family: Two daughters, one is an English major at DePaul University, the other is a high school junior, at an all girl high schoolOccupation: Attorney and Commissioner (hearing officer, for cases brought against the State of Illinois)Education: Juris Doctor. Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, Chicago, IL, 1989. Bachelor of Arts, English. Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1988. High School Degree, Mother Theodore Guerin High School, River Grove, IL, 1983.Civic involvement: Attorney Registration Disciplinary Commission, Inquiry Board Oversight Committee Member; YMCA Level II Swimming Official for 8 years; St. Viator Parish Art Zone Volunteer; Volunteer Speaker at Lane Tech High School (for CSI day), Regina High School (for Forensic Science Class and Career Day), Cristo Rey High School, Finkl Academy Elementary School, and Uno Charter School; Mentor to Loyola University of Chicago Law Students; Volunteer judge and/or juror at the John Marshall Law School and the Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association trial advocacy competitions; Volunteer at Recovery on Water (ROW), a rowing team for breast cancer survivors, and Former Board Member of Josephinum Academy.Elected offices held: noneHave you ever been arrested for or convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain: No, I have never been arrested or convicted of a crime.Candidate's Key Issues Key Issue 1 To make fair and impartial decisions, based on the law and the facts of each particular case that comes before me.Key Issue 2 To serve with integrity and transparency, in order to provide those that have elected me, and those that appear before me, with the honest services that they deserve.Key Issue 3 To be respectful of those who appear before me, serving them with diligence.By ensuring that those who appear before me have their matters resolved most expeditiously, respecting the need to have their cases resolved efficiently, individuals are permitted to go on with their own lives, without the cloud of unresolved or unsettled matters hanging over their heads.Questions Answers Do you favor the appointment of judges or do you prefer the election process' Please explain your answer.For the selection of judges, I favor a hybrid system between the appointment and election processes.The disadvantages of a purely elected judiciary relate to the admittance or exclusion of certain groups from the bench.Where certain groups are entrenched in an electoral process, and where only legiance to that group will ensure the election of a candidate, the danger is that those who do not curry favor with that camp will not be represented on the judiciary.On the flipside, the advantage of an elected judiciary is that it does ostensibly afford voters the opportunity to vote into office their desired candidates.A hybrid system for the judiciary in which judicial elections exist, but wherein a pre-screening process ensures that all candidates are appropriately qualified to become a judge, may have some benefits for the Illinois Courts.The Illinois Courts might benefit from such a hybrid system because voters would be able to maintain their ability to choose based on their best collective judgments, while the pre-screening process would still ensure against instances in which unqualified judges would be elected to the bench based upon popularity contests.What special qualifications or experiences make you the best person to serve as a judge?My accumulated legal experience, coupled with my sensibility to my and my opponents' clients' concerns, have earned me the reputation of an estimable advocate and the respect of my colleagues and adversaries that make me the best person in my judicial race to serve as a judge. My experience in both criminal and civil matters, as well as my practice in federal and state court, provide me with a well-rounded practice. Over 22 years, I have personally become aware of the necessary and essential functions that judges can and do perform. My experiences will allow me to successfully preside over matters, from various pretrial matters and evidentiary proceedings to post trial or post conviction matters. My professional and interpersonal skills are a solid foundation that would enable me to efficiently exercise deliberation and decisiveness when a judge. My organizational skills and practical ability to effectively evaluate the value of cases have enabled me to manage complex and heavy case loads in both private practice and during my service to the government, the most serious cases of which involved either paralysis or death. Most recently, I have practiced law in the area of criminal defense and plaintiff's civil rights, litigating federal and state court felony and misdemeanor matters. My current law practice also includes asset forfeiture, domestic relations, administrative hearings, and civil litigation. I am also a hearing officer for cases brought against the State of Illinois. Before then, I defended catastrophic loss cases. Additionally, I defended City of Chicago employees and officials in litigation alleging civil rights and constitutional violations, discrimination, wrongful death, and intentional torts from ?96-?04. I litigated claims in federal and state court from initial responsive filing through final resolution. I prosecuted municipal ordinance violations from ?91-?95 for Chicago's departments of police, revenue, health, consumer services, environment, streets and sanitation, and animal care and control. I litigated criminal and civil bench and jury trials, prepared pleadings, negotiated pre-trial settlements, and argued contested motions. I am qualified to hold the judicial office that I seek because of my overall life experiences and because of the legal knowledge that I have gained over the past 22 years. I have always unselfishly volunteered my time to public service, both personally and professionally, embodying my commitment of service for others. I am bilingual and was raised in a culturally diverse Chicago neighborhood. I've similarly raised my daughters in Chicago; one is at DePaul, the other is a high school junior. Through my upbringing, I acquired an appreciation for the cultural complexities implicit in our society that will benefit me in my service to litigants appearing before me. Most significantly, I am very proud to be an American and am truly thankful for our system of justice. It is because of all that I offer to the judiciary, and because its constituents deserve such a judge, that I seek a judgeship and that I am the best person to serve as a judge. I am eager to serve as a judge, would be honored if selected to do so, and would endeavor to administer equal justice under the law.What are your thoughts on mandatory sentencing? Do you believe judges should have greater leeway when it comes to sentencing defendants' Why or why not?I believe that mandatory sentences very closely approximate sentences that achieve courts' sentencing objectives.And yet, judges should also have the ability to be able to consider every convicted person as an individual, and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes magnify, or mitigate, the crime and the punishment to ensue.Sentencing judges should start with the mandatory sentence, but then have greater leeway to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct, and the need to provide restitution, in order impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the following purposes of sentencing: (1) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense:(2) to afford adequate deterrence to the criminal conduct: (3) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and,(4) to provide the defendant with the needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.What are your thoughts on the use of drug courts, domestic violence courts, veterans courts, mental health courts and prostitution courts' Have they been effective?The use of drug courts, domestic violence courts, veterans courts, mental health courts and prostitution courts have been effective in the evolution of problem-solving justice. They each address specific community concerns in a wide variety of cases.These courts can each benefit further, and provide better results, with more education and training of its judges and court personnel.For example, the drug court model imposes a tough-love mix of strict judicial monitoring (i.e., drug testing) and drug treatment, whose personnel are specially trained to enroll offenders into much needed drug treatment, many offenders of which would much rather opt for a short-term jail sentence over a lengthy, judicially-monitored drug treatment mandate.Veterans court links returning veterans suffering from problems, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental health conditions, to long-term treatment, working closely with case managers from the Department of Veterans Affairs.As a judge, I would support these evolving courts and volunteer for the additional training and time commitment necessary to better serve our community.For, the existence of these courtrooms has the additional benefit of enabling the remaining courtrooms to run more efficiently, without the burdens and delays that the specialized courtroom cases would otherwise impose on an already overly burdened docket of remaining cases.Do you support eliminating the ban on cameras and recording devices in Illinois courtrooms' Why or why not?In order to provide additional transparency, and to further serve the purposes of justice, I would, with certain safeguards, support eliminating the ban on cameras and recording devices in Illinois courtrooms.I would support the photographing, recording, and broadcasting of courtroom proceedings if such photographing, recording, and broadcasting were done in a manner that ensured that the fairness and dignity of the proceedings were not adversely affected, such that justice would be administered fairly and equally and provided that none of the following would be recorded, photographed or broadcast: proceedings held in chambers; proceedings closed to the public; jury selection; jurors or spectators; conferences between an attorney and a client, witness, or aide; conferences between attorneys; or conferences between counsel and the judge at the bench.In order to photograph, record, and/or broadcast, advance permission would need to be obtained from the judge, on a case-by-case basis.Factors for the judge to balance in granting or denying said requests would include the following: (1)The importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in the judicial system; (2)The importance of promoting public access to the judicial system; (3)The parties' support of or opposition to the request; (4)The nature of the case; (5)The privacy rights of all participants in the proceeding, including witnesses, jurors, and victims; (6)The effect on any minor who is a party, prospective witness, victim, or other participant in the proceeding; (7)The effect on the parties' ability to select a fair and unbiased jury; (8)The effect on any ongoing law enforcement activity in the case; (9)The effect on any unresolved identification issues; (10)The effect on any subsequent proceedings in the case; (11)The effect of coverage on the willingness of witnesses to cooperate, including the risk that coverage will engender threats to the health or safety of any witness; (12)The effect on excluded witnesses who would have access to the televised testimony of prior witnesses; (13)The scope of the coverage and whether partial coverage might unfairly influence or distract the jury; (14)The difficulty of jury selection if a mistrial is declared; (15)The security and dignity of the court; (16)Undue administrative or financial burden to the court or participants; (17)The interference with neighboring courtrooms; (18)The maintenance of the orderly conduct of the proceeding; and (19)Any other factor deemed relevant by the judge. I would additionally support such photographing and recording ban elimination only if judges had the authority to then modify or terminate such recording, photographing and/or broadcasting if he or she deemed necessary for the proper and dignified administration of justice. Only one television camera and one still photographer would be permitted.Further, at no time could the equipment used produce distracting sound or light; signal lights or devices to show when equipment is operating could not be visible; any order permitting or requiring modification of existing sound or lighting systems would be deemed to require that the modifications be installed, maintained, and removed without public expense or disruption of proceedings; microphones and wiring would have to be unobtrusively located in places approved by the judge and operated by only one person; and, operators could not move equipment or enter or leave the courtroom while the court was in session, or otherwise cause a distraction.