Christopher Clements was charged with the separate kidnapping and murder of Isabel and 13-year-old Maribel Gonzalez in 2018. Isabelle was found missing from her bedroom on the morning of April 21, 2012.

Maribel went missing on June 3, 2014 on her way to a friend’s house. Her body was found days later in the Avra ​​Valley near where Isabel’s remains were finally recovered and in a desert area off Trico Her Road.

Clements wasn’t identified as a suspect in either case until 2017, when he led investigators to Isabel’s body in exchange for the dropping of unrelated charges. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder and an additional 17 years for kidnapping.

The jury in Clements’ trial in the Isabel case heard from 30 witnesses over 10 days. They deliberated for two days before declaring misjudgment on March 3 based on Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner’s inability to reach a unanimous jury decision.

Judge James Marner presided over both Clements trials.

According to a motion to remove Marner from the lawsuit filed with the county mayor of Pima on Monday, Marner returned to the jury room for jury service after the jurors were acquitted of service following Marner’s declaration of trial error. said thank you. Court by Scottsdale-based attorney Eric Kessler.

According to the motion, “Judge Marner did not invite an attorney to meet with him and the jury, nor did he confer with the jury of record or with the court reporter.”

Included in the motion was a copy of an article published in the Arizona Daily Star on March 15. It is based on interviews with four jurors, detailing their deliberative process and interactions with the sole holdout.

The jury told Starr that after Marner declared suspicious, he returned to the jury room to thank them and told him about Clements’ previous convictions in connection with Maribel’s kidnapping and murder.

“Judge Marner thought it appropriate to notify the jury of material facts that were duly withheld from the jury…Judge Marner considered it appropriate to inform the jury of other material facts withheld from the jury. You failed to inform the jury of the facts.

According to the motion, Marner should not have said anything to the jury about the facts that were withheld.

“Judge Marner’s decision to improperly convey negative information about Mr. Clements to the jury and to refrain from commenting on the incriminating facts about Mr. Sellis demonstrates prejudice and prejudice against Mr. Clements,” the motion reads. Stated. “As a result, the Daily Star article only reflected negative content on Mr. Clements. Even though I knew I would definitely do so again in a retrial.

The motion said that while the article would give the public the impression that Marner “admired and sympathized” with the jurors who convicted Clements, he held out during the trial about Clements’ conviction in Maribel’s trial. If you said you were “sorry” that you couldn’t speak to the jury that was out.

“Clearly Judge Marner’s discussion with the jury went far beyond his expression of gratitude for their service to the judicial system,” the motion said.

The motion included an advisory opinion from the Arizona Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Committee regarding contact or conversation with a dismissed juror. The opinion stated:

Counsel for all parties should be given the opportunity to be present when the judge speaks with the dismissed juror.

The judge must inform the jurors before the meeting that they cannot answer questions on the pending issue, which is a retrial.

Judges must also “explicitly and emphatically prohibit” discussion of deliberations.

If the jury volunteers the information, the judge is prohibited from conducting a trial without the presence of all parties. The information must be treated like any other unsolicited communication to a judge and promptly disclosed to all parties of record. The parties must also be given the opportunity to speak about the issue.

The motion said Marner’s statement was published in the article, “undermining the public’s trust and integrity in the judicial system.”

Clements’ attorney said that while there were no appropriate or authorized comments about Clements or Sergio Celis, Marner displayed “clear prejudice and prejudice” against Clements by disclosing highly negative information. I was.

“Mr. Clements’ chances of getting a fair jury in Pima County, which were already slim, have been reduced to zero chances,” the motion said. Judge Marner’s ill-fated decision to do so would provide another basis for seeking a change of venue: Will future jurors know that evidence for Mr. Clements’ retrial will likely be withheld? , I doubt.”