Jun
02

The Court Tower Project and Thomas’ misguided investigation

By

Judge Donahoe’s attorney recounted the genesis of prosecutor Thomas’ retaliation against Judge Donahoe:

Thomas,  incensed by what he  considered  to  be  a usurpation of his  power,  not to  mention  the  cuts  to  his  budget,  both  real  and  threatened  by  the  BOS,  enlisted Arpaio and the  two  targeted a County project – they urged the BOS  to  scrap plans for the  long-planned  and  saved-for $347 million Downtown Court Tower.  This  project had  been  in  the  planning  stages  for  12  years;  money  had  been  put  aside  for  its construction  over  that  time,  and  the  BOS  refused  to  scrap  the  project.  Thomas  and Arpaio responded by launching a criminal investigation into  the BOS’ approval of  the Court Tower and Thomas  issued an astoundingly  broad grand jury subpoena seeking years worth of information about  the  project  from  the County.  The BOS  hired Tom Irvine  to  represent  its  interests.  He  moved  to  quash  the  subpoena  largely  on  the grounds  that  Thomas  had  conflicts  in  investigating  the  BOS regarding  the  Court Tower after  he  had  given  it  advice  on  the  same  topic.  In  true Alice  in  Wonderland fashion,  Thomas  then  announced  that  Irvine,  too,  was  now  part  of their  criminal investigation.

Judge  Donahoe,  as  Presiding  Criminal  Judge,  heard  the  matter  and  in February  2009  ruled  that Thomas  had  a  conflict  in  his  dealings with  the County  in that  he was  now  criminally  investigating a client  (the County and BOS)  that  he  had previously  given  legal  advice  to  on  the  same  topic.  Judge  Donahoe  disqualified Thomas,  quashed  the  Subpoena Duces Tecum, denied Thomas’ motion  to  disqualify Irvine, and his motion to assign the matter to  an out-of-county  judge. One month  later, Judge Donahoe denied Thomas’ request  that Stapley be held in  criminal  contempt of court  for  disclosing  information  relating  to  a  grand jury by sharing the Judge’s February 2009 ruling (which he  learned of  through his position as Supervisor)  with  his  criminal  defense  attorney  in  the  case  brought  against  him by Thomas.  Judge Donahoe declined  to  hold Stapley  in  contempt,  finding  that his  right to  counsel  in  the  criminal matter  trumped  any  secrecy  that  should  be  accorded  that ruling.  He also granted the BOS’ request to allow the ruling to be made public.

In  a  motion  for  reconsideration,  Thomas  alleged  for  the  first  time  that  a conflict existed  that  required  Judge Donahoe  to  disqualify himself.  He claimed  that the BOS’  lawyers, Tom  Irvine  and Ed Novak,  also  represented  the  Superior Court  in matters  involving  the  Court  Tower  and  that  Judge  Donahoe  should  have  disclosed that conflict and disqualified himself.  Judge Donahoe rightly denied the motion for a number of  reasons:  as  an employee of  the State, he  had no  conflict with the County’s project;  he  did  not  know,  before  the motion  for  reconsideration,  that Mr.  Irvine  and Mr. Novak  had  any  involvement with  the Court Tower;  he  knew  that Mr.  Irvine did not  represent  him  or  his  employer  in  the  Court  Tower matter;  he  had  and  has  no interest  in  or  involvement  with  the  Court  Tower  project  and  played  no  role  in  its design,  construction, or  funding,  nor had  he  ever discussed any aspect of  the project with Mr.  Irvine or Mr. Novak outside  any  court  hearing.  Thomas challenged Judge Donahoe’s  ruling  in  first  the  Court  of Appeals  and  later  the  Supreme Court.  Both declined to review the ruling.

If you have been wrongfully accused of a crime, contact Phoenix Criminal Lawyer Joshua S. Davidsontoday for a confidential consultation.

Categories : Politics

Comments are closed.

Disclaimer

The Arizona Defense Law Blog is published by Phoenix DUI and criminal defense attorney Joshua S. Davidson. Nothing on this website is intended to create an Attorney-Client relationship and the information provided herein is for general information purposes only.

Admin

Contact Us

Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson, PLC (480) 248-7022