The prosecutor behind the conviction of Jodi Arias, Juan Martinez, is assigned to the prosecution of Avtar Grewal, and is pursuing the death penalty. Grewal is a citizen of India charged with murdering his Indian-born wife in Phoenix, Arizona, and then fleeing to India on a direct flight from Newark, NJ to New Delhi. He was arrested by Indian agents upon landing, thanks to the quick police work of Indian and Phoenix detectives.
This story (which was followed by some interesting stereotype-laden comments about South Asian culture) was previously covered on Daily Kos here. Grewal was a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. His wife, Navneet Kaur, was estranged from him and living in Phoenix, Arizona.
Grewal is accused of flying from Vancouver to Phoenix, beating and strangling his wife to death, and fleeing to the Phoenix airport for his journey to India. Kaur's coworkers became alarmed when she did not show up for work. When they visited her house, they discovered a crime scene and contacted police. Phoenix police identified the flight Grewal was on while he was in the air. When he landed in New Delhi, agents from India's CBI (that country's FBI) promptly arrested him.
Grewal contested his extradition from India, but this was a doomed effort from the start. India supports the death penalty, even though it only rarely applies it. The death penalty is often a successful point of leverage for criminal defendants opposing extradition to the U.S., from countries that have no death penalty. Since India was not such a country, extradition was inevitable. India's Supreme Court affirmed the extradition in 2011. Grewal was subsequently delivered by Indian authorities to law enforcement in Phoenix.
Arizona Trial Proceedings
The state and Grewal's attorneys wrangled for some time on a trial date. On February 22, 2015, the court granted a continuance that appears to have been agreed to by both sides. The new, current trial date is November 4, 2015.
Meanwhile, the court heard arguments and evidence on whether Grewal was eligible for the death penalty. On April 9, 2015, it ruled that he was. This ruling was based on the following facts from the testimony of the county medical examiner, as summarized by the court:
The State presented the testimony of one witness, medical examiner John Hu. Dr. Hu testified that he was not involved in the initial autopsy but reviewed the report (Ex. 32) prepared by Dr. Davenport, a former medical examiner in the office, agreed with the majority of her opinion, and formulated his own opinion as to cause of death. He opined that the cause of death was manual strangulation. He explained that manual strangulation was strangulation that did not involve the use of any ligature. He determined the strangulation was manual because the injuries on the neck as shown in the autopsy photos were consistent with manual strangulation and inconsistent with use of a ligature and because no ligature was found at the scene.
The victim had a bruise on the front of her neck near her chin, a bruise on her forehead, petechiae on her cheeks, in both eyes, and under her skull, hemorrhage of the neck muscles, and the upper cartilage near her Adam’s apple (the superior horn of the thyroid cartilage) on both sides were fractured. Dr. Hu stated that all of these injuries were consistent with manual strangulation and likely occurred before death. They were caused by the pressure being applied to the neck. He could not state how much pressure was applied or how long it was applied, but did note that the pressure would be higher to fracture the superior horns because they are not fractured in every case of manual strangulation. If pressure was applied evenly, a person would lose consciousness within 10 to 15 seconds, but it could have taken longer than that. The bilateral carotid artery has to be completely blocked for consciousness to be lost; if the blockage is not complete, losing consciousness could take longer. The brain starts to lose function due to the loss of blood to the brain, so the person would feel decreased alertness before becoming unconscious. Dr. Hu could not opine how long the victim was conscious.
The victim was found in the bathroom of her home, facedown, with her upper torso and head submerged in water in a bathtub. Dr. Hu ruled out drowning as the cause of death because there was not a large amount of water in her stomach or fluid in her lungs. He was unable to state if the victim was conscious at the time of being submerged, but opined that she was likely unconscious but still alive because the water was bloody. The victim had had heart surgery approximately the year before and was on Coumadin, an anti-coagulant, at the time of death, which caused her to bleed more.
Dr. Hu stated that the victim had two other injuries - a small laceration near her right eyebrow and a bruise on her right ear. These were likely caused by separate blunt impacts before death. He was unable to state what caused these injuries or whether they occurred at the same time. He also was unable to state which occurred first, the manual strangulation or the blunt force trauma to the right eyebrow/ear, but opined that both could have occurred in rapid succession.
Dr. Hu stated that there was no indication of any defensive injuries and nothing on the victim’s arms to indicate there was a struggle.
The prosecutor handling this case has been and still is Laura Reckhart. Recent papers filed with the court indicate that Juan Martinez has been added to the case as Reckhart's co-counsel.