GOSHEN COUNTY – The Goshen County District Court met in session promptly at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday afternoon for a motion hearing in regard to Torrington man, Jesus Eleon Martinez, for his role in an alleged baseball attack on one Juan Deleon on June 11, 2023.

Goshen District Judge, Ed Buchanan, presided over the proceeding with Goshen County and Prosecuting Attorney, Eric Boyer, representing the state of Wyoming.

Cheyenne attorney, Joe Bustos, represented the defense of Martinez via digital technology throughout the course of the hearing.

Judge Buchanan addressed all present within the court, and explained the purpose of a motion hearing in relevance to admission of evidence as well as the assurance of Miranda Rights.

“We are here and have set some time today to consider the defendant’s motion, since the state has the burden in this case to show that statements were not made in violation of Miranda or other Constitutional protections,” Buchanan began.

In order to coincide with motion hearing procedure, prosecuting attorney Boyer required the testimony of Goshen County Sherriff’s Office Deputy and Investigator, Sergeant Herbert Irons.

Irons had initially made contact with the defendant as well as the victim after being dispatched to the alleged incident last June.

“Torrington dispatch had received a call from Banner Health ER saying they had an individual saying he had been assaulted,” Irons began. “Therefore, I went to the ER to make contact with the victim. I then responded to the area where the victim stated the incident had occurred, and made contact with a resident there. I collected evidence that was on that scene, and then drove by the Martinez residence where I saw what the victim had discussed was a possible suspect vehicle sitting outside a residence on East 5 Ave.”

Irons while being questioned on behalf of the state recalled numerous interactions he had with both Martinez, as well as his father Steven and brother Fabien.

“The first time I made contact with Mr. Steven Martinez, he stated to my recollection that he didn’t want to talk, was too busy and walked away,” Irons continued. “By the time I went to the hospital, made contact with victim and went back to the scene it was multiple hours later. Juan Deleon identified three of the suspects as Jesus Martinez, Miko Martinez and Fabien Martinez. It was Juan that had disclosed that he was familiar with them, and identified them as his attackers. I asked and explained while I was down there the basic allegations that were being made by Mr. Deleon. Jesus denied that he had any involvement, and he stated that he had been home all day.

“I spoke with Steven Martinez on two different accounts; one account saying he was too busy and didn’t want to speak to me, and on another occasion in wanting to look through a blue passenger vehicle.”

It should be noted that said passenger vehicle was described in detail to Irons both by the victim while in ER, and by a neighboring witness living in the area.

“I then asked him if the passenger vehicle outside the house matched the description given to me by Juan DeLeon,” Irons continued. “I asked and explained to him that I wanted to look through the vehicle, as it was said to have been used as transportation in reference to a crime. Steven Martinez gave me permission to look, at which point I documented photos of the interior of the vehicle, tires of the vehicle, but nothing was collected past the photographs. I asked him to sign a waiver to let me search the vehicle. He said he was not going to do that, but stated verbally that I had permission to look through the vehicle. I also went up and asked Fabien what had happened. He replied that he had had no involvement in what happened, had been at home all day and the bluish green vehicle had not left the entire time. I explained that if they did not want to talk to me they didn’t have to, and I believe I said that to Jesus Martinez. My interaction with Fabien was longer than Jesus, I would say by about three minutes. My second encounter with Steven was me documenting and processing the vehicle, and I did that for approximately fifteen minutes.”

In regard to the testimony of Sergeant Irons, Bustos responded with concerns of admissible evidence on behalf of his client.

“I had a motion to address the bodycam evidence to exclude that from evidence,” Bustos stated. “My particular concern is evidence of injuries. Our issues are that we don’t want to upset a jury, so we would limit those photographs and the state can make an offer. We can respond, but we do want to have that addressed either now or when we get closer to the trial. Moving on from that motion, the bodycam issue is really body and visual. The concern is it comes down to anything audio. What we are gathering is a lot of hearsay evidence from witnesses, and they need to come testify. That’s my concern with the bodycam and photographs.”

Prosecuting Attorney Boyer responded and addressed the concern of the defense before the court on behalf of the state.

“What pictures or audio evidence is described in relevance or as admissible, I would argue that it concerns potential testimony of audio footage which might be useful or admissible. And for the pictures, I agree with the defendant to not have an over-compassionate jury. I would simply refer to the court and state’s response to Mr. Bustos’ motion to suppress couple with the testimony of Mr. Irons today, and would ask the court to review that information and dismiss the motion.”

After hearing from both the defense and prosecution, Judge Buchanan addressed the issue of any concerns with photographical evidence to be considered admissible or not.

“To make sure we are all on the same page, it sounds like it may be a bit premature on the motion to limit photographic evidence. That is obviously something the court will probably consider at trial or pretrial,” Buchanan said. “If the court conceived photographic evidence that it really requires, it would be nice to have that done prior so that the state and defense can review that. So, the court can analyze any statements that are made on the camera to make sure what is proper is admissible, and what is not is not. But again without that or briefing by the attorneys or viewing said evidence, to your point it’s something the court will be unable to rule on today. I think the photographs will probably take care of themselves more than the bodycam. I’m happy to make a determination of the photographs, but with the bodycam the both of you will have to go through that and argue that to the court in time. With that I will extend the motion deadline to be able to argue those, and I will set another hearing which we would like to do in plenty of time.”

The court stood in recess at 2:25 p.m.