Legal scandal forces Pinal County off high-profile capital murder case

The quadruple murder was brutal: two men and two women shot and slashed at a low-rent casita in Casa Grande in October 2017. Alec Perez, the estranged husband of one of the victims, was arrested almost immediately, along with his friend, Rodney Ortiz.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Perez had a bad meth habit and a history of abusing his wife, Crysta Proctor, whom he met while both were in a halfway house. The other victims, Justin Yates, Connie Carrera and Jose Aguilar, were staying with Proctor, in part, to protect her from Perez. Ortiz allegedly went along for the ride with Perez. 

The Pinal County Attorney’s office filed its intent to seek the death penalty against both suspects, and the Pinal County Superior Court appointed defense attorneys for them. The cases dragged on.

Seven years later, acting on a tip from the prosecutor’s office, the judge in the case realized that Perez’s attorney, Matthew Long, was not qualified to try a capital case, and he was ultimately removed from the case. 

From there, the case doubled back on itself like a staircase in an M.C. Escher painting, and Long was simultaneously walking in both directions.

Ortiz’s attorneys asked for a change of venue and a change of prosecutor. Perez’s new attorneys followed suit. And after months of evidentiary hearings, Starr, who was brought in as an impartial evaluator, ruled in the defense’s favor.  

“We appreciate the Court’s thoughtful ruling, which upholds Mr. Ortiz’s constitutional right to due process and a fair trial,” Ortiz’s attorneys, Jamie Sparks and James Soslowsky, wrote in an email. “This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that our justice system must not only be fair but appear to be fair.”

Long, who did not testify in the disqualification hearings, did not respond to the Arizona Mirror’s question, but did respond to Starr’s order on his Facebook page. 

“If both sides of a controversy make a claim about a person and both sides refuse to call that person, then neither side is interested in the truth, but only argument,” he wrote. “When the truth doesn’t advance one side’s argument, then it is that attorney’s duty to not present truthful information — if they can. That is our system.” 

The Pinal County Attorney’s Office has not yet commented on the order.

Death penalty defendants are assigned two defense attorneys, designated as first and second chair. Long has always insisted — and still maintains —that he was qualified to be first chair, but the court ruled that he had not met one important requirement: that he had worked on a capital case to its conclusion, presumably as second chair. 

Long claimed that a capital case he had prosecuted in his earlier job as deputy Pinal County Attorney met the bill. But that case ended in mistrial because of misconduct on Long’s part. Long also had received permission to defend capital cases from the Arizona Supreme Court, but only if he associated with an attorney who was death-qualified. The judge in Perez’s case ruled that he never did.

After he was removed from Perez’s defense team, Procter’s mother, Christine Maples, filed a lawsuit against Long and the county. Long also filed a notice of claim against the county and the judge who removed him from the case.

Then another case Long had prosecuted was brought to bear. A federal court judge had thrown out the conviction of a man accused of sexual conduct with a minor because Long had vouched for a jailhouse snitch, saying the snitch had received no benefit for his testimony, when in fact he was allowed to plead to a lesser sentence in exchange for testimony. That defendant, Fernando Almanza, filed suit against the county for wrongful conviction.

In her order, Starr wondered why neither the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, knowing Long’s history, nor the judge had questioned his qualifications sooner. She also wondered why the court had not referred him to the State Bar for potential discipline. But the immediate problem was that Long was now under scrutiny not only for his actions as a prosecutor but also as a defense attorney, and that the county could ultimately be liable for his actions in both roles.

“(I)n this case, the Maples lawsuit and Long’s Notice of Claim essentially implicate all the parties in Pinal County’s legal system,” she wrote in her order.

The appearance of impropriety was too much. And the conflicts, real or perceived, could sway the outcome of the Perez and Ortiz trials, especially given the high profile of the cases.

“Here, where two lawsuits have been filed based on Long’s conduct and Pinal County’s response to his conduct, and where Long has filed a Notice of Claim against a sitting Pinal County Judge, the possibility of public suspicion is great,” Starr wrote. “The Court finds that possibility so great that it outweighs the benefit of having (Pinal County Attorney’s Office) continue on as the prosecutors.”

Then she turned to the court:

“Here, given the allegations made in the Maples lawsuit, Almanza lawsuit, and Long’s Notice of Claim, such an observer would naturally doubt whether justice could be done if these cases are heard by (Pinal County Superior Court),” she wrote. “There is no need to find wrongdoing, and the Court finds none. But justice must not just be fair, but appear to be fair. Given the underlying facts here, the only way to achieve that end is to disqualify (Pinal County Superior Court).”

The order did not specify what court or what prosecutor office will ultimately try the case. But it is a short list: only three Arizona counties try capital cases, and one has been disqualified. That leaves Yavapai and Maricopa Counties as possible venues.

And before that happens, there is a likelihood that Pinal County will appeal the order and the cases will drag on further.

Long had another suggestion.

“Regardless of the facts, which remain in dispute, the only just outcome is the removal of the death notice. The fact that issue hasn’t been raised or argued should trouble anyone that values truth, justice or due process.”

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE