Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
W.D.Wash.  
Average Rating:4.0 - 18 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation
Add a comment only

Ratings

*Temperament:   (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Scholarship:   (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Industriousness:   (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
*Ability to Handle Complex Litigation:    (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Punctuality:    (1=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:    (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:   (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling   (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:   (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:   (1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:    (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:    (1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:    (1=10%,10=100%)
  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Comments



What others have said about Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 20866
Rating:4.7
Comments:
Extremely pro-plaintiff. Had a multi-week jury trial before him and 90% of the rulings on admission of evidence went for the plaintiff, as did his crafting of the jury charges. He also didn't understand the law and didn't care to learn it either.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 19367
Rating:4.0
Comments:
A poor grasp of the law and a real hazard in a jury trial. Often prejudges motions and then complains because he has to reconsider and reverse himself.

Other

Comment #: 19251
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Ricardo Salazar Martinez, United States Federal Judge was the 13th Jurors. Judge Ricardo Martinez’s gave the Jury's Instructions on 2/18/11 just before noon. In his closing remarks before the jury deliberated the Judge erred in open Court when he unethically stated," Monday 2/21/11 is a Holiday and some of you came along way. If you can reach a verdict today you won't have to make that long drive back on Tuesday." The Judges remarks were egregious and unconscionable. It took two hours for an all white Jury (not of his peers) to come back with a Guilty Verdict on all four counts. Holds a Kangroo Court an unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals of the ?cout. The family paid $970.00 for portions of the Trial Transcript including the Judge’s flagrant remarks were unconscionable . After we got over the shock of the Conviction we made an agreement with the District Court Clerk Nancy Bauer one week after Trial on 2/27/11. The money was accepted and I was to receive the Trial Transcript on week later. I will attach the receipts. This Judge and the Prosecutors violated, judicial rules, laws and ethics on March 11, 2011, when the Prosecutor and Judge Martinez decided to Seal the Trial Transcript that was done in open court. Sealed Trial Transcript to cover up the errors. Judge Martinez our son to sentenced nine years and he has NOT been ALLOWED to see his OWN TRIAL TRANSCRIPT for his own APPEAL defense Pro Se'.

Other

Comment #: 18309
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
You would think that judges in the hotbed of internet and computer technology would have some idea of the Lanham Act as well as general internet rulings by the ninth circuit not to mention general rules of lawyer advertising. In Davis vs. Avvo rather than applying obvious federal law as well as case law he simply reiterated the position of another dimwit on the bench out there. Seems these people (N.W.O. elitest) would rather have people settle their disputes in the street.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 18022
Rating:2.5
Comments:
Had an interesting day not too long ago. I sat in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and listened to multiple Martinez CIVIL cases that were up on appeal. He was reversed each time. People need to understand that Martinez may be a fine criminal judge, especially when locking up defendants, but that isn't the entire job. To say otherwise would be akin to arguing that anyone who can dunk should be in the NBA! As the below comments aptly suggest, he is a fish out of water when it comes to dealing with COMPLEX CIVIL MATTERS. He just doesn't do his homework. Most or all of these comments can coexist, and those Ninth Circuit hearings only strengthened the positions of those who say he is unqualified. In each case, the outcomes should have been so obvious at the district level. His rulings seem to contradict prevailing and widely recognized case law, which means his actions tend to border on abuse of authority. If you can't do the entire job, you aren't qualified to do the job at all.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 17316
Rating:9.5
Comments:
I have handled several settlement conferences presided over by Judge Martinez. He has an uncanny ability to cut through all the BS and posturing and get to the crux of the matter. Truly excellent people skills and an innate sense of justice. I would take him over any other in this district.

Prosecutor

Comment #: 17315
Rating:9.6
Comments:
One of the best judges for criminal trials in the district! I have practiced in two other districts and this judge is one of the bet that I have seen. He's fair, even tempered and runs a tight ship but makes excellent rulings, an excellent record and truly concerned with obtaining justice.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 17309
Rating:9.8
Comments:
Took a difficult case to trial, Judge Martinez was as good as could be. Made tough but fair rulings and the jury rewarded my efforts by returning a six figure award. I have no clue what those prior comments are about but I saw nothing but an excellent trial judge at the top of his game.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 13356
Rating:1.5
Comments:
Awful. Not the brightest bulb on the tree. Should be removed.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 12832
Rating:2.3
Comments:
Should go be a corporate defense attorney.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 12339
Rating:1.0
Comments:
He's in over his head and far from qualified to be a judge. He is extremely uneven in his rulings.

Litigant

Comment #: 12189
Rating:2.0
Comments:
He does not read briefs and shows himself to be extremely biased against pro se litigants. Fails to research relevant and current case law, but has a strong propensity towards favoring corporate defendants. Has extremely poor comprehension, reasoning and writing skills. Fails to adhere to summary judgment standard, construing inferences in favor of movants when convenient (i.e., government or corporate litigants). Allows corporate defendants to commit fraud upon the court and perjury.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 12086
Rating:1.0
Comments:
morally bankrupt, ignorance of law - how did he get on the bench????? another dull knife in the drawer, puppet

Other

Comment #: 8286
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
My trial experience before Judge Martinez has shown him to be very well-prepared in complex administrative matters, consistent in his rulings, and fair to all parties. He treats parties and lawyers with unfailing courtesy, and runs his courtroom very professionally but without the tense atmosphere of other judges. It is obvious that he enjoys being a judge, and it is a pleasure to appear before him.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 3767
Rating:2.7
Comments:
Not well prepared to be federal judge in complex matters. Rulings inconsitent, picks a "favorite" in most proceedings and will rule their way regardless of law and facts.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 3765
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Appears to pre-judge issues. Opinions are self-contradictory, contrary to precedent, and poorly reasoned.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 1915
Rating:2.5
Comments:
Several decisions in different cases contrary to law.