Thu 7 Jan 2010
Why is Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk publicly criticizing the prosecution of Supervisors Wilcox and Stapley?
Posted by Press Release under County Government , Crime and Punishment , Ethics[24] Comments
A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
January 6, 2010
She thinks there needs to be a good ole boy network that relaxes the law when it comes to powerful people, so they can help each other out in return, like get each other appointed to the Court of Appeals.
In an op-ed in the Arizona Republic which ran December 22 (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/12/21/20091221polk22-ON.html ), Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk criticized ongoing prosecution cases, including one her office is still handling, the first indictments of Supervisor Don Stapley. Although Polk has returned two cases involving the prosecutions of Wilcox and Stapley to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, she must think there is merit to the first indictments of Stapley since her office still has it. Stapley was indicted the first time around on 118 criminal counts for leaving information off his financial disclosure forms, information that would have revealed that he was allegedly taking bribes from his former business partner and convicted felon Wolfswinkel (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/134417).
It is unethical as an attorney to speak publicly about an active case, with few exceptions. According to the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, Ethical Rule 3.6, Trial Publicity, “(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. ” It is even more arrant to comment publicly on a criminal case, as footnote 6 to the rule proscribes, “[6] Another relevant factor in determining prejudice is the nature of the proceeding involved. Criminal jury trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech.” (http://www.myazbar.org/Ethics/ruleview.cfm?id=43)
Among other things she stated about the case, Ms. Polk wrote in her article, “Prosecutors are ethically bound to refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” By saying the cases are bad cases, she has now jeopardized them.
Why is Ms. Polk violating an ethical rule in order to criticize Thomas and Arpaio for their prosecutions of Supervisors Stapley and Wilcox? The left wing Arizona Republic, aka the public relations wing of the County Supervisors, won’t print the reason why. The reason is because Ms. Polk is desperately trying to get appointed to the Court of Appeals as a judge. She tried in the past and was rejected, and is hoping to get an appointment this coming year. In order to do so, she needs to be recommended by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, which is stacked with appointees who detest Arpaio and Thomas (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Arizona_Commission_on_Appellate_Court_Appointments). Conservatives are actively making an effort this year to get more balanced people to serve on that commission. Writing an op-ed slamming Arpaio and Thomas is Polk’s sure ticket to getting the commission to recommend her.
Contrary to her assertion in the op-ed, Ms. Polk is no conservative. She may be a Republican, but she is a liberal country-club Republican who looks out for the good ole boys and gals. She thinks prosecutors and county supervisors should look the other way and scratch each others’ backs. She writes this about the cozy relationship county attorneys should have with each other, “We are a brotherhood (or sisterhood).” Ms. Polk thinks that high-level officials who commit white collar crime should get extra special treatment. She believes in a two-tier system of justice, not one that treats everyone blindly under the law as our Constitution guarantees. She thinks there needs to be a good ole boy network that relaxes the law when it comes to powerful people, so they can help each other out in return, like get each other appointed to the Court of Appeals.
Who is Sheila Polk? The Phoenix New Times ran a series of articles on how a black man, Bryant Wilkerson, was prosecuted for his role in a car accident that killed a passenger, but the other driver, a cute blonde female who was drinking while driving, Laura Varker, was not prosecuted by Polk’s office (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-03-26/news/bryant-wilkerson-is-facing-jail-for-a-fatal-accident-but-if-a-drunk-driver-hits-you-is-it-your-fault/). The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office prosecuted Wilkerson, but referred the prosecution of Varker out to the Yavapai Attorney’s Office due to a conflict. Polk sent the case to a special incident review committee within her office, so it was carefully looked at. According to the Arizona Republic, Varker had a history of alcohol offenses, and used a fake ID to buy alcohol the day of the deadly crash. She had a .08 or .09 BAC level at the time of the crash. “In a letter to Maricopa County authorities, prosecutors said their decision was based on a lack of evidence, conflicting accounts of witnesses and inability to show Varker was impaired at the scene of the crash. ” (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/25/20080625crash0625.html ) Polk ultimately was responsible for the decision not to prosecute Varker.
Did Sheila Polk write the op-ed criticizing Arpaio and Thomas because she really believes the charges aren’t valid against Wilcox and Stapley? The case against Supervisor Stapley that she returned to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office involved him using campaign funds for personal use. According to a press release from the Maricopa County Attorney, “Stapley allegedly spent $6000 of these funds at Bang and Olufson electronics, along with $1300 for hair implants, $400 for candle holders and $10,000 for furniture for his home. He also spent these funds, solicited as campaign money, to buy tickets to Broadway plays and movie theatres, flowers, grocery store bills, massages, department stores and trips for his family to Sundance, Utah to ski, a trip for his son and friends to Florida and a three-week vacation in Hawaii for his entire family at a beach house costing approximately $11,000.” The prosecution of Supervisor Wilcox that she returned was over Wilcox voting on giving Chicanos por la Causa grants from Maricopa County, then turning around and accepting “loans” from Chicano por la Causa. Must be nice to be a public official and get those kinds of sweet deals, then have the prosecution look the other way because they are trying to get appointed to the Court of Appeals as a judge! That’s the kind of judges we need!
January 7th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Is the Arizona Bar Association currently investigating Polk over this? Looks like a pretty clear ethical violation to me. Polk is not anyone who should EVER be a judge. Does anyone know if the Bar Association has influence over her becoming a judge? If so, they should do everything in their power to see that she does not. Can you imagine the kinds of decisions she would make as a judge, “I’ll let you off the hook depending on what you can do for me.”
January 7th, 2010 at 10:40 am
She is speaking out because Andy and Joe are in the wrong. That is what people with integrity do, no matter what party you are in.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:44 am
You’re missing the elephant in the room, which is the sweatheart plea deal Sheila Polk gave to Secretary of State Ken Bennet’s son. http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/123050.php
As you can see from the article, the families of the rape victims were FURIOUS at Polk.
This woman clearly believes that the powerful ought to be off limits when it comes to being held accountable for their actions. That’s why the investigation by Arpaio and Thomas offends her so–she really believes in two systems of justice, and her actions show this.
January 7th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
This is stupid. There is no current opening on the Court of Appeals. You would have to believe that Governor Brewer is part of the so-called conspiracy against RINO Joe, since Governor Brewer does the appointing of appeals court judges. As far as I can tell, Governor Brewer won’t touch the county mess with a ten-foot pole — on either side of it.
As for an ethical violation, County Attorney Sheila Polk is commenting on public business. If anyone thinks she has violated an ethical rule, where is the complaint to the Arizona Bar to back it up?
Last, Secretary of State Bennett has absolutely zero to do with the county mess, and is in no position to advance or not to advance County Attorney Polk’s chances for a judgeship — if that’s what she wants. To drag the case against his son back up, is disgusting.
January 7th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Hey look, here’s a page right out of the Dave Hendershott smear book!
Let’s not talk about the truth in her statements, let’s attack her charachter. Forget that Andy and Joe have launched politically motivated prosecutions, let’s criticize her decisions on unrelated matters. In doing so, let’s make a bunch of baseless, unprovable statements and take a legal ethics opinion from someone who knows nothing about the subject. Of course, she may be 100% right, but who cares? She’s a country club Republican and even when they are telling the truth they’re wrong.
Okay, so Sheila Polk intentionally botches multiple criminal investigations to curry favor with the powerful lawyers in Maricopa County who control the commission on appellate court appointments. A thinking person might look at their website and discover that it is a 15 member commission and only five of the members are from Maricopa County and one of those is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Only two of the remaining four are lawyers. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I find it hard to believe that Sheila Polk joined the conspiracy and committed crimes to get two votes on a 15 member panel.
It’s really easy to have opinions unburdened by truth or logic.
January 7th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Is there an end in sight for all the shenanigans going on with so many elected officials? Not only does Ms Polk not belong to the bench, but she ought to be investigated and disbarred if guilty.
As for Stapley and Wilcox, let’s get rid of them, we need honest members on the Corporation Commission.
As for those people who keep on harping on Arpaio and Thomas, these 2 are protecting us, so get a life and hopefuly, grow a spine!
January 7th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I think the Republican Party should kick her out. You cant have smart independent woman speaking out against King Joe and Prince Andy!
January 7th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Political:
What is RINO Joe protecting you against? He is a joke as an effective law enforcement officer, though I will give him an A+ for smoke, mirrors, and phoniness. Hasn’t the county paid out millions in lawsuits due to his incompetence? Isn’t Phoenix the kidnapping capital of America, with RINO Joe being completely ineffective to stop it? Aren’t the Mexican smugglers and drug lords heavily involved in the kidnappings?
This is the traitor who endorsed Janet Napolitano for governor in 2002 and starred in a commercial supporting her, when she squeaked through to victory on a razor’s edge. He is a Republican in Name Only who supported liberal Democrat Big Sis when all the chips were on the line. You all may be dumb enough to fall for his con job. Not me. Sheila Polk saw right through the old phony. So do I. So should you.
January 7th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Uh, “Politicalanimal”, first, Stapely and Wilcox are on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, not the Corporation Commission. Perhaps you haven’t followed this debate too closely.
Second, I assume you believe Stapely and Wilcox are dishonest because Joe and Andy don’t like them. Wouldn’t it be better to have some proof?
Third, it takes a spine to stand up to the people with the guns and prosecutorial power. You might want to watch the investigative piece from KPHO about what happens when public officials disagree with Arpaio and Thomas. Dishonest hit pieces like the rant at the top of this page are just par for the course when someone tells the truth about Joe and Andy.
Finally, no, the “shenanigans” are not going to stop for a while because these guys are going to lose the legal battles they’ve recently started and then there is going to be a whole new list of people to investigate and charge. They don’t take losing in court very well and tend to use criminal investigations rather than appeals.
These guys aren’t protecting you–they’re protecting themselves at our expense. If you’re not scared by the way they’ve used their power you should be.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I think Sheila Polk should be able to say what she wants, but it’s clear she has a history of affording special treatment for well-connected people
That’s why I’m not surprised to hear her be critical of Joe and Andy as she seems to think that the powerful are above the law, or should at least be judged by a different standard. That’s a legitimate issue, not a smear
January 7th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I think between Thomas and Arpaio they prosecute 40,000 felonies every year. They are in the criminal investigation business, big time. And probably a lot of the 40,000 think they’re being singled out, too.
I seem to recall the same kinds of complaints against Thomas when Bishop O’Brien and Dale Fushek were getting prosecuted. Oh, and that guy Habb who held some illegals at gunpoint.
Eventually, the truth comes out and everyone gets their day in court. But Stapley and Wilcox seem to be trying to prevent even that from happening.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Handel:
What’s the history of Sheila Polk giving special treatment to well-connected people? I don’t see that at all.
Snickers:
I agree with you about Stapley and Wilcox. But that’s a separate issue. And wasn’t it Romley that prosecuted Bishop O’Brien?
Sheila Polk is being criticized for calling it like she saw it. She has seen through RINO Joe (Big Sis’s friend) and his phoniness. That doesn’t take a lot of intelligence.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“It is unethical as an attorney to speak publicly about an active case, with few exceptions.”
Am I the only one who senses the irony of an Andrew Thomas supporter leveling that charge against another attorney? Thomas and Arpaio are the kings of extra-judicial smear jobs!
January 7th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Snickers:
Charges against O’Brien were filed in June, 2003 when Rick Romley was the County Attorney.
Your memory about the complaints just isn’t accurate. O’Brien was charged with a hit and run and Fushek for sexual misconduct. Both argued their innocence, but neither complained that they were being prosecuted because of their opposition to Arpaio and Thomas’ tactics.
Using prosecutorial powers to pursue one’s political enemies is incredibly dangerous territory. Those 40,000 felons you mention, if it is that many, didn’t push hard for an independent audit of the Sherrif’s department budget like Stapely and Wilcox. Those 40,000 felons weren’t repeatedly butting heads with MCSO over delivering inmates to the court like Gary Donahoe. Terry Goddard, Colin Campbell, Barbara Mundell, Ken Fields, Tom Irvine, Sheila Polk etc. All opposed Joe and Andy and all are now under investigation.
When a prosecutor and a sheriff team up to investigate and prosecute their enemies, we all should be very skeptical. Maybe some of these people are guilty, but you’d be a fool not to take a look at the evidence produced so far (very little) and not ask yourself why every high profile opponent of these two is now under investigation. You’d be even more of a fool if you overlooked that moronic plot two years ago to arrest the editor of the New Times. We all know that rag has it in for Arpaio–no secret there–but arresting journalists for doing their job? Very third world and another example of Arpaio trying to punish his critics. This is the New Times case all over again just with much higher stakes. It didn’t work out too well for them last time and it doesn’t look much more promising now.
Prosecuting 40,000 people all of whom profess their innocence is just the nature of the beast. Routinely investigating and prosecuting political (and other)opponents–that’s dangerous. Public corruption cases are nothing new, but when the law enforcement folks are politicians and stand to benefit substantially from the prosecution we’d all better watch out.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
James Davidson-
Polk’s pattern of giving preferential treatment to the well connected started with her soft treatment of the girl from the wealthy Varker family, described in the post.
Then she went soft on the son of a high profile politician. But don’t take it from me, here’s what the victims said, as quoted in the Star article(http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/123050.php):
“”I think he got a sweetheart deal,” said the father of one of the three Tucson victims, a 12-year-old boy who attends a local Catholic school.”
“”If these were two kids from South Tucson without money or connections, they would never have been offered this deal,” said Lynne M. Cadigan, a Tucson attorney who is representing two of the families.”
Now again Polk stands in the way of justice when the offenders are powerful politicians…we’ve seen this before.
Say what you want about Arpaio, but Polk seems to believe that political connections or wealth give the criminal offender AMNESTY…
January 7th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Handel – Arpaio and Thomas are the powerful politicians in this case.
In her letter Polk used the term ‘totalitarian’ to describe the inner workings of Arpaio and Thomas operations. I hope those of you defending this pair understand what you are helping to support.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
todd-
I haven’t heard of a lot of “totalitarians” who were elected in free elections, that type of rhetoric seems more aimed at scoring points with the liberals Polk needs to be appointed a judge than anything else.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
“Rino Joe”…I like it! Some of the truest words ever written on this site about that sorry excuse for a conservative. Looks like his wholesale support of JaNo, fiscal mismanagement, opposition to private property rights, and disregard of the law (unless it suits his political purpose) has finally gotten some attention.
January 8th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I notice with glee that some of Polk’s pals are harping on Joe Arpaio’s 2002 endorsement of Nappy!
What I notice is that the guy who headed up GOPPERS for Nappy in 2006 and supported her run for A.G. is none other than Grant Woods, who’s assuming leadership positions in not only McCain’s re-election effort but that of Jan Brewer.
And Lisa, why is it wrong to enforce Immigration Law as both Arpaio and Thomas have done?
Is it depriving your contacts of their “fast bucks”?
January 8th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Carlist:
Woods did not support Big Sis for A.G. He supported Tom McGovern, a very successful trial lawyer, whom Big Sis barely beat. I’m not defending Woods. But what RINO Joe did was far worse. Big Sis would have lost in 2002 without RINO Joe’s support and commercial, and we would have been done with her and had conservative state government throughout the last decade. We also would not have landed in bankruptcy.
Woods was wrong to have supported Big Sis in 2006, but his support made no difference. He brings along all of two votes — his and his wife’s — and Big Sis was going to cream Munsil regardless. In case you forgot, we conservatives took a thumpin’ in 2006.
Nothing is wrong with enforcing immigration law. The trouble is RINO Joe is a Joey-Come-Lately with his pop-gun efforts. His first three terms in office he was nowhere to be heard on the subject. His sweeps are all for show. Lock a few up, turn ‘em loose south of the border, and they’re back the next day. Big Whoop. How many businesses have been prosecuted? Exactly one, and that was after it went out of business and was no more than a shell.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
It’s truly scary when you can’t even speak out against a public official without being investigated.
Sheila Polk should be investigated and disbarred for speaking out against injustice she sees in the system? Just as every other opponent of Andrew Thomas has been investigated? Do you Andrew Thomas supporters see how crazy you’ve become? Do you see how far you have strayed from core republican values?
These kinds of things happen in third world countries, but we cannot put up with totalitarianism in the United States of America.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Can someone just make a list of people who shouldn’t be investigated?
January 9th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Dragster:
You’ve completely missed the point. Our constitution protects us from baseless investigations. Its not about making the “can’t be investigated list”. Its about making the “should be investigated list”. As a public official you can’t just investigate someone because they exercised their right to free speach in a manner you disagree with.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
[...] County Attorney Sheila Polk, famous for violating attorney ethics rules by publicly criticizing the prosecutions of indicted Supe…, continues to violate those rules. E.R. 3.6(a) forbids Arizona attorneys from publicly commenting [...]