News coverage prompts change of venue request in embezzlement case

Mardi Link, The Record-Eagle, Traverse City, Mich.
·2 min read

May 1—TRAVERSE CITY — A judge will hear arguments in an embezzlement case over whether media attention about the charges has tainted the jury pool and the advantages of conducting a joint trial for two defendants.

A Peninsula Township couple, David M. Martin and Ellen L. Martin, are charged with felony embezzlement from a vulnerable adult, after prosecutors say they took advantage of their trusted role as caretakers for an ailing doctor suffering the end stages of Parkinson's disease.

David Martin is charged with one count of embezzlement of more than $100,000 from a vulnerable adult, one count of attempted embezzlement of more than $100,000 and one count of embezzlement of more than $20,000 by an agent or trustee.

Ellen Martin is charged with one count of embezzlement of more than $10,000 from a vulnerable adult.

The Martins have both pleaded not guilty.

Court records show how the Old Mission Peninsula couple in 2019 were hired to care for Jay Ambrosini, an Illinois radiologist who, before he died in 2021, had a net worth of about $12 million and owned homes in California, Illinois and in northern Michigan on Duck Lake Peninsula.

Ambrosini, who has since died, had no heirs and his money is in trust for the benefit of non-profit educational recipients such as Interlochen Arts Academy and Culver Academies, an Indiana boarding school.

The Martins were bound over to 13th Circuit Court in March, and are scheduled for a seven-day jury trial beginning June 6 before Judge Kevin Elsenheimer.

The Martins' defense attorney, William Burdette, filed a motion seeking a change of venue, after he said Record-Eagle coverage of the case resulted in David Martin receiving "negative feedback" from people in the community.

"Given the adverse pretrial publicity, Defendant requests the Court to change the venue of this matter," Burdette said in his motion.

Assistant County Prosecutor Daniel Olson opposed the motion on behalf of the People.

"The amount and tenor of the articles is neither extensive, intensive or potentially inflammatory," Olson said in a court brief. "The articles described evidence that was properly introduced at a preliminary hearing or other information that was a matter of public record."

Olson in a separate motion is seeking to join the cases into a single trial for the purposed of expediency and conservation of court resources.

The hearing on both motions is scheduled at 2 p.m. Thursday before Judge Elsenheimer.