The Maricopa County Attorneys Office secretly investigated jurors in a death penalty case using detectives and a confidential FBI database after a judge refused to remove the jurors because prosecutors did not like them.

While vetting jurors is a normal and important part of the trial process, MCAO prosecutors used the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), one of the most powerful tools in law enforcement, to probe a pair of jurors without telling the court, the defense, or the jurors themselves.

"The use of the NCIC database to investigate me was totally uncalled for, and I believe may have violated my civil rights and the FBI rules for proper use of the database, said Jillian Barfield, one of the two jurors.

Barfield learned about the secret investigation into her life from ABC15.

I feel betrayed as a juror who gave five months of my life to the court system."

When the judge discovered what happened and demanded to know whether MCAO's actions were legal, top prosecutors told the court it was obviously fine, and it was not the courts role to question them.

It seems obvious that even if it's not illegal, which it may be, it's at least unethical and dishonorable, said David Euchner, President of the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a statewide association of defense attorneys.

He added, It brings dishonor on the legal profession when we bring jurors in for jury duty, we thank them for coming in to sit on trials, and then one side uses law enforcement tools to investigate them to dig deep down into their deepest secrets."

FULL INVESTIGATION: Jurors/Investigated

For nearly a year, ABC15 has investigated what happened by obtaining and reviewing court records, including documents that were sealed the day after a reporter began asking questions about the case. The station has also conducted interviews with legal experts from across Arizona and the country.

The experts said this situation is unprecedented and undermines the entire jury system upon which the court relies. But despite experts dire warnings, no legal authority has taken control of the situation.

And no one is telling jurors except ABC15.

On September 30, 2025, during jury selection for the death penalty trial against Franklin Clifton, MCAO prosecutors Kristin Larish and Heather Livingstone moved to have two jurors removed from the case.

Their reason: they did not like the jurors' demeanor and body language.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Monica Edelstein immediately rejected their motion, saying she found no issue with the jurors answers or actions.

But rather than accept the ruling, MCAO then had detectives secretly investigate the jurors and run the pair through the NCIC.

When Edelstein later found out, the judge outlined the matter in an order and ruled that MCAO needed to brief the court on whether its NCIC use on jurors was allowable under Arizona criminal law. The order was sealed the day after ABC15 began asking questions about what happened in the Clifton case.

ABC15 saved a copy before the court removed the order from public view.

In the order, Juror 54 is Jillian Barfield.

The second, Juror 42, was eventually dismissed, and her identity has not been made public.

Through court filings and other sources, ABC15 confirmed the NCIC search on Juror 42 turned up a case in which she had been a victim. Prosecutors also found a sealed, dismissed case in which the juror shoplifted formula for her baby.

"I think that's insane... what relationship does that have to being a juror?, Barfield said during an interview with ABC15.

Barfield spent five months serving on the jury in the Clifton case.

She said she had no idea she had been investigated until after the death verdict when the judge lifted the admonition on jurors, allowing them to look up outside information about the case.

When searching about the interview, Barfield saw an ABC15 report about Edelstein raising questions about MCAOs NCIC use.

It sent her spinning.

"It's like going down a roller coaster. My stomach just kind of felt like that kind of experience. It was, I couldn't believe it, she said. (I was) angry.

Barfield believes she was targeted, in part, because of her political background. She had recently run for Congress as a Democrat against Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh, a former MCAO prosecutor.

That's the question I have: Why?, Barfield asked. If they didn't know me from a hole in the wall, or if they didn't know me or anything about me, why single me out?

In a statement, MCAO denied that Barfields political candidacy had any role in their investigation.

The NCIC is a federal database maintained by the FBI and accessible only to law enforcement.

In Arizona, improper or unauthorized use is also a crime, a Class 6 felony, according to state statutes.

Experts across the legal and political spectrum said using it to investigate jurors, especially after a judge already refused to remove them, crosses a "red line.

"I can't think of anything more disrespectful than treating a juror like a common criminal," Euchner said. "They didn't like how a couple of jurors looked and some of the answers that they gave, and when they were unsuccessful in getting them tossed off, prosecutors were like, you know what, we're going to bring in detectives."

Euchner said the conduct is "at least unethical and dishonorable" and "may even be illegal."

RELATED: What experts say about MCAO's investigation of jurors

Esther Hong, a law professor at Arizona State University, said the implications extend far beyond this one case.

"I think that people would rightly be worried that if they show for jury duty, that they can be under the surveillance of the government," Hong said. "I think that will have a big chilling effect."

Matthew Cavedon, a policy director with the Cato Institute, a libertarian policy organization, said the investigation undermines the fundamental role and function of the jury.

"What is so shocking about what you've uncovered is that the government is pulling out all the stops to ensure that the jury is not functioning as the conscience of the community, but rather that people who are called are pressured into siding with the government," Cavedon said.

Will Snowden, head of the Juror Project

said the tactic is not a legitimate use of law enforcement resources and looks like a tool to stack juries in the prosecutions favor.

"Secretly investigating jurors after a cause strike has been denied is not helping root out jury discrimination in America, and particularly in Arizona," said Snowden, whose organization is focused on jury reform and equity. "It is a new tactic to achieve the same result of kicking people off the jury without a legitimate reason."

Experts said the issue is also unprecedented because Arizona is the only state in the country that does not allow peremptory strikes, which allow lawyers to remove jurors without stating a reason.

Because of that, prosecutors in Arizona must demonstrate good cause to remove a juror.

"When you get rid of peremptory strikes and prosecutors no longer just get a free pass on kicking people off of juries, that is an effort by lawmakers to say we do want juries to just reflect the community and that the government should take juries as it finds them, Cavedon said. When you have the government looking for workarounds, trying to escalate by going behind closed doors and running secret background checks and pulling through confidential files on people they are indeed responding by upping the arms race.

Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell did not agree to sit down for an interview.

But ABC15 questioned Mitchell at a press briefing on August 27, 2026, and the exchange grew tense. She defended her office and called ABC15s description of what happened a gross exaggeration.

WATCH: County Attorney answers questions from ABC15s Chief Investigator

Mitchell said her primary concern is seating a fair and impartial jury.

During the Clifton trial, when Judge Edelstein issued an order directing MCAO to explain its use of the NCIC, prosecutors pushed back hard.

In their filed responses, MCAO wrote: "Yes, the State may obviously use the NCIC database to research jurors. Prosecutors also added that it was not an issue to be decided by this Court."

To highlight that it was not the courts role to interject, MCAO cited a ruling from an out-of-state case that said, [Courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.

Experts found MCAOs response to be not only wrong, but scary.

"I know a lot of prosecutors, and I've talked to them across the spectrum too, that do think it's appropriate in certain circumstances," Mitchell said, when asked about experts concerns.

In a series of emailed statements, MCAO said it does not know how often it has used NCIC to investigate jurors.

We keep no such tracking but are confident that this kind of review of jurors is rare and is done only with good cause appearing, a spokesperson wrote.

Despite the offices defense of prosecutors actions, MCAO said it is now considering whether to add a policy related to NCIC use and jurors.

The Courts Inaction

Judge Edelstein, who presided over Cliftons death penalty case, initially demanded to know whether MCAO's actions violated the law. But after receiving briefings from MCAO and defense attorneys, the court dropped the matter.

In a final ruling, the judge wrote: "If anything, post-briefing, the Court is left with more questions." But the judge concluded by stating, "no issue needs to be resolved at this time."

ABC15 requested interviews with Edelstein in addition to Maricopa County Superior Court Presiding Judge Pamela Gates and Criminal Presiding Judge Jennifer Green.

Through a spokesperson, all three declined.

In series of statements, court officials said ABC15s reporting "raises important issues" and it will be part of an evaluation by the Jury Advisory Committee to determine if rules need to change.

Read the Courts full responses to ABC15

The court also said juror qualification is their responsibility and stated they never asked prosecutors for help. But when ABC15 asked if the court has told MCAO to stop using the NCIC to investigate jurors, the court's written response was: "No."

So far, court officials have only confirmed they talked with MCAO leadership about the tone of their response to Judge Edelstein.

Karen Clark, a legal ethics attorney, said the court has a responsibility it has not yet met.

"The judges really aren't just a potted plant," Clark said.

"They're in there to ensure that justice is done." She added, "This is an issue of statewide importance. So, it seems like it should be something for the court to do."

This is not the first time MCAO has been accused of targeting jurors.

Attorney Tom Ryan represented a juror in a separate, earlier death penalty case.

That juror, whose name ABC15 is withholding to try to protect what remains of her privacy, refused to vote for capital punishment in a high-profile trial. During the stalled deliberations, the lead prosecutor leaked her name to a trial blogger he was having a sexual relationship with, according to a legal disciplinary complaint.

"When I say outed, I mean in the most vicious way, Ryan said. They outed her husband, their place of work, her children's school. They had taken pictures of her wedding and made them look bloody. There were death threats."

Then after the juror refused to vote for death, MCAO investigated her, Ryan said.

"They knock on her door, and they tell her we are here to investigate what you did in that trial," Ryan said. "My client called me hysterically. 'I thought this was over.'"

Arizona State Bar records show that the prosecutor was eventually disbarred, and the county attorney has since changed.

But Ryan said history should not be ignored.

When asked if he felt like MCAO had learned its lesson, Ryan responded, No, I dont. It looks like this problem is repeating itself. He added, "Using FBI resources to investigate the background of a juror is way beyond what's needed. It's using a bazooka to shoot a gnat."

Experts said the courts, the state bar, or both, need to act.

While both the Maricopa County Superior Court and Maricopa County Attorneys Office said they are reviewing and considering policies, neither has finalized any changes and did not commit to any timeline.

"I do think there needs to be a clear ruling, hopefully by the Arizona Supreme Court," Hong said.

Euchner said something similar, "It's important for someone in authority, if not a court, for the state bar, to say that this is not allowed.

Ryan agreed.

"We probably should look at developing rules to prevent this from happening at the state bar level," Ryan said.

But some experts said jurors themselves may be the most powerful force for change.

"Jurors should ask whether the government is investigating them," Cavedon said.

Snowden said that kind of pushback sends a message.

"If a juror is like, 'Hey, I don't want to be investigated,' that then signals a larger problem to the court that there is a policy and practice in place that is actually dissuading jurors from serving in our courtrooms," he said.

Barfield said she hopes her story prompts others to speak out.

"If nobody speaks up, then they're just going to keep doing it," she said.

Dave@abc15.com

Maricopa County Superior Court officials acknowledged that ABC15's reporting on the secret investigation of jurors raises important issues and confirmed that its Jury Advisory Committee is now evaluating whether new procedures are needed. The court also confirmed that ABC15's reporting is formally part of that evaluation.

But the court has set no deadline for the review and made no commitment to what changes, if any, would result.

While the court confirmed that it has contacted Maricopa County Attorney's Office leadership about the issue, officials said they have not issued any directives, guidance, or requests that prosecutors stop using the confidential FBI database to investigate jurors. Instead, the courts outreach to MCAO focused on prosecutors tone in response to questions from a judge about whether the practice was legal and not about the jurors who were investigated without their knowledge.

The court confirmed that verifying juror qualifications is its responsibility, and not MCAOs. Court officials said they have never asked law enforcement for assistance.

FULL INVESTIGATION: Jurors/Investigated

ABC15 requested interviews with the Presiding Judge Pamela Gates, Criminal Presiding Judge Jennifer Green, and Judge Monica Edelstein (the judge who presided over a case where she raised concerns), but all declined.

The court's full written responses to ABC15's questions are below.

After ABC15 submitted questions and a formal interview request, the court provided a written statement on August 12, 2026.

After reviewing the court's initial statement, ABC15 submitted follow-up questions. The court's follow-up responses are below.

Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and her office defended the decision to use detectives and a confidential FBI database to secretly investigate jurors in a death penalty case.

In written statements to ABC15 and court filings, the office maintained that nothing improper occurred and that prosecutors obviously had every right to do it. Mitchell declined ABC15's request for a former on-camera interview. But she answered ABC15s questions at a recent press conference (full exchange below).

MCAO claims it doesn't know how often it has used the FBIs NCIC database to investigate jurors. But a spokesperson said in an email, We keep no such tracking but are confident that this kind of review of jurors is rare and is done only with good cause appearing. MCAO does not appear to have clear policies governing the investigation of jurors. But the office said a policy is now under consideration.

FULL INVESTIGATION: Jurors/Investigated

County Attorney Rachel Mitchell declined ABC15's request for an on-camera interview. She answered ABC15s questions at a press briefing on August 27, 2026.

ABC15 submitted detailed written questions to MCAO over the course of the stations reporting. The full email chain is below.

When Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Monica Edelstein ordered MCAO to explain whether its use of the NCIC database to investigate jurors was legal, the office filed a memo and reply in response. The two documents are embedded below.

Filing dated November 18, 2025

Filing dated December 1, 2025

Dave@abc15.com

After uncovering that Maricopa County prosecutors used detectives and a confidential FBI database to secretly investigate jurors in a death penalty case, ABC15 interviewed experts from across the state and country about what it means.

The experts come from across the legal and political spectrum: a criminal defense association president, a law professor, a legal ethics attorney, a libertarian civil liberties organization, and a national juror rights group.

Their opinions are consistent: What happened in Maricopa County is deeply disturbing, unprecedented, and may not be legal.

FULL INVESTIGATION: Jurors/Investigated

The experts believe what happened is a threat to the integrity of the jury system. They warn it could discourage people from serving on juries, disproportionately harm communities that are already underrepresented in jury pools, and give prosecutors power to stack juries in their favor.

All agree on one thing: The secrecy should stop and someone needs to set some rules.

David Euchner is the current head of the state organization that represents and supports criminal defense attorneys across Arizona. He called what MCAO did outrageous and said it crosses a red line that should never have been crossed.

Key Points:

ESTHER HONG

Esther Hong said this situation is an issue of first impression, meaning no Arizona court has ever ruled on whether this practice is legal. She raised particular concern about the practice's potential impact on jury diversity and participation from communities that are already over-policed.

Key Points:

Karen Clark spent more than 36 years working in legal ethics. She started first as a State Bar prosecutor pursuing attorneys for ethical misconduct and then worked as ethics counsel advising attorneys across Arizona. She's also defended attorneys in bar discipline matters. She said the Maricopa County situation is uncharted territory and that the legal and ethical questions it raises remain unresolved.

Key Points:

Matthew Cavedon directs the criminal justice project for a libertarian policy organization based in Washington, D.C. that focuses on individual rights, limited government, and civil liberties. He compared the Maricopa County situation to larger surveillance debates (i.e., Flock) and argued that secretly investigating jurors is a fundamental threat to jury independence.

Key Points:

Will Snowden is the founder and director of a national organization focused on making sure criminal juries reflect the communities where trials take place. He is also a criminal defense attorney in Louisiana and a professor at Loyola Law School. He said the practice of secretly investigating jurors after a judge denied a strike is a new tactic to achieve the same discriminatory result as biased jury selection.

Key Points:

All five experts agree that the current situation -- no rules, no oversight, no accountability is unacceptable. Their recommendations include:

Dave@abc15.com

Jillian Barfield believes she did everything right.

She showed up for jury duty when she was summoned. She answered every question. She sat through five months of the death penalty trial against Franklin Clifton. And she deliberated carefully.

When the trial was over, Barfield went home and searched online since she was no longer blocked from looking up information about the case.

She found an ABC15 report that made her slip into a days-long tailspin.

"It's like going down a roller coaster. My stomach just kind of felt like that kind of experience. It was. I couldn't believe it.

Watch an extended edit of Jillian Barfield's interview with ABC15 Chief Investigative Reporter Dave Biscobing in the video player above.

During jury selection for the Clifton trial in September 2025, Maricopa County prosecutors singled Barfield out from a panel of dozens of prospective jurors.

Court video obtained by ABC15 shows MCAO spent approximately 20 minutes questioning her alone far longer than any other juror that afternoon.

After the questioning, MCAO asked Judge Monica Edelstein to strike Barfield from the jury, arguing that her demeanor and body language made her unfit.

The judge denied the motion immediately.

Then, without telling the court, without telling the defense, and without telling Barfield, MCAO had detectives run her through the NCIC (a confidential FBI law enforcement database) that only prosecutors and law enforcement can access.

Misuse of the NCIC is a Class 6 felony, according to state statutes.

After learning about the secret investigation, Barfield wrote an email to the court.

FULL INVESTIGATION: Jurors/Investigated

"The use of the NCIC database to investigate me was totally uncalled for, and I believe may have violated my civil rights and the FBI rules for proper use of the database," she wrote. "I feel betrayed as a juror who gave five months of my life to the court system."

Barfield believes she may have been investigated because of her political background. She was a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Congress earlier this cycle..

On the moment she found out:

On feeling like the criminal:

When asked if she felt like the criminal:

On what was done to her:

On whether she thinks it was legal:

On the political dimension:

[MCAO denies her political candidacy had any role.]

On why she is speaking out:

This digital article was produced with the assistance of AI and based on the reporting and interviews conducted by ABC15 Chief Investigator Dave Biscobing (Dave@abc15.com).