Home › News › Local News
Jury gets rights case against Oxnard
Field worker was severely injured in police shooting
Download this story as a podcast!
The federal case of Martinez v. City of Oxnard is in the hands of a jury.
It took nearly a decade for it to get tried, and the city faces significant liability should the jury find in favor of Oliverio Martinez.
In 1998, Martinez was a strawberry picker who lost his eyesight and was partially paralyzed after Oxnard Police Officer Maria Peña shot him several times.
Martinez, now 39, was never charged with a crime. He sued former Oxnard Police Chief Art Lopez, police officers Peña, Andrew Salinas, Ben Chavez, and the city itself.
Martinez was on bicycle
On the night of the shooting, Salinas and Peña were investigating suspected drug activity in a vacant lot in Oxnard when Martinez came upon them on a bicycle. The officers stopped him, found a 12-inch knife tucked into his pants, and an altercation ensued, during which Peña shot Martinez in the back, face and leg.
Martinez's lawyers said the knife was a "work knife" that all field workers carried.
Defense lawyer Alan Wisotsky said it was a hunting knife and in his closing argument said it was what caused Martinez to be shot.
"This work knife, ladies and gentleman, is what led to the shooting of Mr. Martinez," he said.
The police officers gave two explanations of what happened they said that Martinez tried to take Salinas' gun, and that he did take the gun and had it in his hand when Peña shot him.
Martinez's lawyer, John Burton, said the story was fabricated because the police knew they weren't justified in using lethal force.
"That is why they had to change the story," he told the jury Thursday in his closing argument.
Stopping and searching Martinez as he headed home on a bicycle was not reasonable, Burton said.
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsThe Fourth Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures, Burton said, "is an extremely important law that gives us, regular people, freedom to go about our business. Without that, this is a police state."
Civil rights lawyer Samuel Paz addressed Chavez's role in the incident separately.
Chavez, who was then a parole supervisor and is now a sergeant, accompanied Martinez to the hospital after the shooting. In the ambulance, and continuing at the hospital, Chavez had a tape recorder and tried to get statements from Martinez, whom everyone expected to die as he screamed in pain and called out for his father.
Questioning called brutal
Paz called the questioning brutal, offensive, and shocking to the conscience.
"You eight folks have to decide if Mr. Chavez was there to help his (partners) or was there for a legitimate government interest," he said.
Paz said the questioning violated Martinez's due process rights.
"The Constitution was developed because our forefathers really wanted to get away from an oppressive society," he told the jury. "Our forefathers said, we don't want to have members of government forcing people to talk when they can't or don't want to."
In his closing for the defense, Wisotsky said Chavez was investigating a crime, and "Mr. Martinez was lucid, responsive and aware of his surroundings."
He called the lawyers' presentation of their case against Chavez "outrageous."
Martinez has also claimed the city and former Chief Lopez failed in their supervision, training and hiring practices. Lopez did not appear during the trial.
"Where's the chief?" he asked the jurors. "He didn't want to be responsible for the system he endorsed. He's a no-show."
Wisotsky told the jury that police officers have rights too, and are entitled to defend themselves. In his day, he said, Martinez was "buff."
"He was a packer," he said. "He was a stacker."
"Could things have been done better that night?" Wisotsky asked. "Probably. They always can. Does that mean that what was done was substandard? Absolutely not."
Both sides praised the jury, composed of four men and four women for their dedication and punctuality during the nearly three weeks it took to show them all the evidence.
Posted by Ventura22 on April 20, 2007 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would have shot him too if my life was on the line. Work knife? BS!! It's illegal to carry a knife larger than 4 inches on your person; especially concealed! Why was this guy fighting with officers?? Hmmm...he WAS up to something out there in the dark and had something to hide all right.
The only thing the officers seem to have done wrong is to have bad aim in this case; he lived. The other officer did his job very well by trying to get a statement from this man before he died. That's what they're supposed to do in a situation like that; after all, with that many holes in him, death would have seemed imminent.... a "dying declaration" for those who understand law. That wasn't forcing him to talk. The Chief is long since retired. He's put in his time and worked hard for many years serving the public; leave him alone.
It's funny how we seem so quick to nitpick the actions of our protectors; I challenge anyone who does to go out there and try doing that job. I guarantee you would have done the same thing those officers did had your A** been on the line and you followed your officer safety training.
Posted by justice0401 on April 20, 2007 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's
Posted by justice0401 on April 20, 2007 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's nice to see that the Star is so neutral! What a joke! Bottom line is if Mr.Martinez didn't have the "work knife" and he didn't struggle with the officers, this would never had happened. I commend the officers for a job well done!
Posted by sitonit on April 20, 2007 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with the previous post. And I believe that Mr. Martinez needs to take his attention and energy towards making this world a better place. Maybe helping teens see that carrying knifes and guns aren't worth it. There is so much good that he could be doing instead of putting all his engery into trying to millions out of the City of Oxnard and giving bad names to a couple of officers, who by the way, have done great things in the past 10 years. Why pull youself down when you could pull yourself up.
Anyway to all police personal keep giving your all, I for one appreciate your braveness and your kindness. I know that doing what you do is so dangerous that you should be praised daily.
Hope the jury has a brain and not sympathy for the injurys. We all put ourselves in the situations that give us the consequences.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on April 20, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with justice0401 and ffamgreer! If this guy didn't have anything to hide, why did he fight with the officers? Innocent people comply with orders of officers, not resist them. He's lucky he isn't dead, he should be. Maybe OXPD should send thier officers to the shooting range for some more practice!
Posted by AnMa on April 20, 2007 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone even seen a farmworkers knife? Those things are huge.
Posted by martin.gonzales on April 20, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I sincerely hope that those cops get it. Just like the fools that had run over that lady tanning on the beach. The "BRASS PASS" (,<---law enforcement badge)has been used for waay too long as a "free ticket" out. I hate to use the race card, but if this were a white person, or someone that came from money instead of nothing, many views on this would be changed. Whether you agree or not, doesn't matter to me. But it is sad to know that there are many who fear Law enforcement, rather then feeling protected by them. "Catch22"? who knows. When something you feel foul happens to you, or someone you know, im sure you'd be purched right on top of the fence. Which way will you fall?
Posted by VCRes on April 20, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Martin, maybe if he hadn't fought with the officers and grabbed the gun, then many views may change. But that's not what happened. How can you believe the officers shot the man for no reason what so ever. You believe they woke up one day and said "I feel like shooting someone today"? Come on, think about it.
As for the race card, I get the feeling you would pull the race card on this matter, regardless. Look at the names of the defendants (Salinas, Pena, Lopez, Chavez) this isn't about race.
Posted by martin.gonzales on April 20, 2007 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The fact of the matter is that no one knows what had happened. That is the reason why its going to jury. As far as the mentallity of a cop holding the gun? You nor I know what they are thinking, there are many good people in law enforcement, as well as many who have let situations in their work experience taint thier views on many things and people. What i do believe is that this was an extreme use of excessive force. A bullet at close range by one person does enough damage. Why so many after the initial one?
Posted by Anita_Corona on April 20, 2007 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your word against three officers' is hard to overpower. I agree with AnMa. Unless you question most of the people who work in the fields you'll see that it is not unusual to carry a knife like that. For officers like these, you give them a dirty look, and they say their lives are in danger. I saw danger in his/her eyes so I pulled out my gun and shot him in the BACK!!! yes, I agree cops are to help the public but let's not forget about those who abuse their authority. those who ask you a question and basically smack you if you don't answer and if you do answer they yell at you to shut up!! three cops versus a guy? on a bike? come on!! personally, I hope they find these cops guilty.
Posted by nancy_4ever on April 20, 2007 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Martinez was a field worker. I agree with you Martin. I pray that God, who is for the underdog, and the defender of the helpless, will move on behalf of Martinez, who is now blind. Those officers, who both had guns,and a patrol car, used excessive force when they shot a man, 3 times, who was on a bike, with a knife!!!
Posted by VCRes on April 20, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Martin, one or five bullets, it doesn't matter if the shooting isn't justified. But when it is justified, as it was in this case, as I believe the facts to be, you don't shoot just once. You want to make sure you put the threat (the man pointing the gun at you) down so he can't use that gun against you. If you shoot once and wait and see, you may not get a second chance.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on April 20, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The same people who blame a lack of police officers on the streets for crimes in their neighborhoods are frequently the ones who, due to "cultural" issues, refuse to turn in criminal activity that goes on under their very noses.
Salinas and Peña have routinely placed their lives on the line in an extremely hostile environment to protect others.
I feel bad for Mr. Martinez in that his life was damaged forever due to that terrible incident of only a few seconds.
I have seen field workers, in themselves an admirable and hard working group of people, who have become combative when confronted by police for no known reason. How long Mr. Martinez has been in the U.S. and whether or not he has a criminal record would be of interest.
We should all obey the orders of authority immediately and without question. Questions can always be asked later.
Posted by VCRes on April 20, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nancy, where did you read that Martinez was on his bike when he was shot? The article doesn't say that. The officer didn't shoot him because he was holding the knife, the article says the officers said he had the other officer's gun.
Anita, do you know the officers? How can you accuse them as you do without knowing them? Neither of us know them, so how can you say they over react to dirty looks or abuse their authority?
Posted by martin.gonzales on April 20, 2007 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VCRES, you state " one or five bullets, it doesn't matter if the shooting isn't justified"
If the shooting isnt justified, doesnt this make it a matter of "injustice." And isnt that what the whole case is about?
noun 1. the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity.
2. violation of the rights of others; unjust or unfair action or treatment.
3. an unjust or unfair act; wrong
Posted by shaver_one on April 20, 2007 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Basic rule of thumb:
Don't pull out a gun, unless you plan to use it.
If you use it, shoot to kill.
If you shoot, fire all rounds.
Whether the cops were justified or not, only they know for sure
Posted by jamaro099 on April 20, 2007 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TimeArrow,
When you say...".....the ones who, due to "cultural" issues, refuse to turn in criminal activity that goes on under their very noses."
Are you talking about cultural groups of people like Scott Peterson's parents? They've defended him all along. What about Andrew Luster's mom, I believe she put up some of his bail money.
But, what do "cultural" issues have to do with this case?
Facing a huge law suit I'm sure OPD did all they could to find something to charge him with. Yet he is charged with nothing. But you are right about one thing, it is unfortunate that do to "cultural" issues, the good police officers out there do not turn in the bad ones.
And no, we do not have to "obey the orders of authority immediately and without question". We do not llve in a police state.
Posted by nancy_4ever on April 20, 2007 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VCRes:
This story has been on going for a very long time so I decided to read everything on it. If you take the time to do this you will be disgusted. The farmworker was on a bike - get the facts!
Posted by nancy_4ever on April 20, 2007 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Per article "On the night of the shooting, Salinas and Peña were investigating suspected drug activity in a vacant lot in Oxnard when Martinez came upon them on a bicycle. "
Posted by VCRes on April 20, 2007 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nancy, yes he road up on a bike. He was off the bike and fought with the Officers, which resulted in the shooting. They didn't shoot him while he was pedaling along.
Posted by VCRes on April 20, 2007 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I mean "rode"
Posted by nancy_4ever on April 20, 2007 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VCRes- how do you know he was off the bike, nothing suggests he ever left his stance on the bike position... he stopped but the bike was always between his legs.
Posted by nancy_4ever on April 20, 2007 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
-how dare OPD hire then police chief Art Lopez. Lopez was working for L.A.P.D. Rampart division during their scandal and before coming to Oxnard.
Posted by B8R_N4MD on April 20, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Simple, grab an Officer's gun, face the consequences. Considering the gun can still be fired and be fatal to the Officer while holstered, deadly force is used to stop the threat. No one forced him to grab the gun. He is responsible for the results of his actions, as sad as it might be. The fact he rode up on a bike or the Officer's arrived in a vehicle is insignificant. He fought and grabbed the gun. That action resulted in him being shot.
Posted by jamaro099 on April 20, 2007 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rbrooski.....isn't it curious that the police officers claim he grabbed the gun but their defense attorney says that Martinez was shot because he had a knife?
What is your opinion on why he wasn't charge with any crime? The city is facing a huge lawsuit...if Martinez really was guilty of a crime wouldn't charging him help in their defense?
Posted by VCRes on April 20, 2007 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone know why he wasn't charged? Did past articles indicate, if so, please write. Did the OPD file a report with the DA's office asking that charges be filed? It is the decision of the DA, not the police on whether to file a criminal complaint. It is possible the OPD felt Martinez was penalized enough (lost vision and partially paralyzed), and their officers weren't seriously injured, so they didn't request that the DA review the matter to file criminal charges. Anyone know?
Posted by B8R_N4MD on April 20, 2007 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was not at the scene or in court, so I cannot comment on discrepancies. I don't know why the DA didn't file any charges, but that is routine for our DA. I would guess only half of arrests in Ventura County result in charges being filed. It's widely known if there is a chance on not winning in trial, the DA won't file. Ask any local Police Officer about this. It is very frustrating for them to say the least when they do a complete crime investigation to have it rejected by the DA and the suspect set free. Martinez was arrested and charged by OPD. I would imagine the decision was with the DA, not OPD. Hold the DA accountable.
Posted by luvpaint on April 21, 2007 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If this guy was doing illegal activities he would not have passed the police.2nd one guy, one knife,
4 officers no need for 4 bullets or 3.3rd if something wasn't amiss the case would have not reached this far,criminal record or not.The truth is that now-a-day they do hire trigger happy people that get scared easy,and fear makes you do things that would not be the best choices.1 bullet would have been enough to be able to tackle him down. Their so short on staff you could be a cop right away,they only care if you don't have a criminal record you pass.Just my opinion.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.