A casual greeting and hug inside a Williams County courtroom became the focus of a North Dakota Supreme Court appeal this week. The high court has upheld the conviction of Joshua Brock Martinez, ruling that the trial judge acted properly when he removed a juror who appeared overly friendly with the defendant’s family.
Martinez was convicted in January 2025 of two counts of attempted murder, along with reckless endangerment and other charges. He later appealed, arguing that the District Court violated his rights by replacing a seated juror with an alternate early in the trial.
The issue arose on day two of the seven-day proceeding. Prosecutors told the judge they had witnessed “Juror 9” greeting, speaking with, and hugging a man in the gallery—Jacob Martinez, the defendant’s cousin, who is described as being like a brother to him. The judge said he also noticed the pair acting “chummy.”
When questioned, the juror admitted he knew Jacob Martinez from work but claimed he didn’t realize Jacob was related to the defendant until they spoke in the courtroom. Although the juror insisted he could remain impartial, the judge replaced him, calling the decision a “close call” but necessary to protect the integrity of the trial. One of two alternates—both present for all testimony—filled the seat.
On appeal, Martinez argued that substituting a sworn juror violated the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause, saying he was entitled to the original jury once it was sworn.
The Supreme Court rejected the claim. In an opinion by Justice Bahr, the court ruled that replacing a juror with a qualified alternate who has heard all the evidence does not trigger double jeopardy. The justices found the trial judge acted within his discretion and had a legitimate concern about the juror’s connection to the defendant’s family.
Because the alternate juror had undergone the same selection process and observed the entire trial, the court determined Martinez received a fair proceeding. His criminal convictions remain in place.