County Supervisors’ Manager David Smith hires criminal defense attorney in federal Grand Jury probe

Sonoran Alliance has just learned that County Manager David Smith has hired criminal defense attorney Michael Black, best-known for his representation of baby-faced killer Chris Andrews. Smith has insisted publicly that he is just a “witness” in the feds investigation of the county, but if he is just a “witness,” why is he the only official we know of who has hired a high-profile criminal defense attorney to represent him? The Phoenix New Times has a picture of Smith next to his criminal attorney as they are leaving the federal investigation proceedings:


  1. If he was worried about defamation or something noncriminal, he would have hired a regular civil defense type of attorney. The fact he’s hired a high-profile criminal defense attorney who has represented killers in the past shows he’s really, really scared about something. I thought there was something funny when the Grand Jury requested to interview an employee from the County Supervisors budget division. What does that have to do with Arpaio? Nothing. It has everything to do with misuse of money, can anyone say “$341 million Court Tower” which the Supervisors have blocked release of any info on?

  2. PingPongLee says

    How far will these detractors of the sheriff go in order to destroy one the few remaining MEN we have in AZ? These people are whiners and sycophantic Liberals who worship at the altar of Dems.

  3. Indecision 2010 says

    You don’t know much about the law do you, Hugh? People involved in criminal cases hire criminal attorneys. And it’s pretty rare that they hire prosecutors (as in, never) so that leave criminal defense attorneys.

    Really, I’m just sad for you on this one.

  4. What’s he hiring a Criminal Lawyer for??????
    Something going on we don’t know about, HUH.

  5. alicia gegner says

    Witnesses do not hire attorneys, at least not unless they have a guilty conscience. What is David Smith afraid of? I bet it is the truth.

    The guilty have certain patterns of behavior. We may or may not be able to prove guilt in accordance with the law, but there is not doubt that Smith acts like a kid whose mother just found a trail of cookie crumbs running from his bedroom to the kitchen.

    My fond vision is that of Smith and some board members being fitted for pink underwear and orange jumpsuits. Maybe the colors don’t match, but it would sure look good.

  6. Has it occured to any of you morons that Smith hired a criminal defense attorney because Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas want him criminally prosecuted? David Smith knows these two want to file charges against him so he’d be a fool if he testified unrepresented. Get a clue.

    Contrary to the uniformed blather so far, yes, grand jury witnesses often do hire attorneys to advise them.

    This wild speculation and imputation of guilt is just wishful (and frankly fearful) thinking from Arpaioites. You are reading way to much into this non-story.

  7. The biggest moron is Glick. Smith is the ONLY one that felt the need to hire an attorney and he picked one of the best. I’ll give him credit for a good choice and one he will likely need. Even Wilson did feel the need for a lawyer, ONLY Smith. Remember all the other county elected officials said he is the major problem in the county. How soon we forget. Wilcox didn’t even rise to that level and she is a democrat.

  8. Mole:

    You need to get your facts straight. First, Loretta Barkell, Arpaio’s CFO hired a lawyer. Tom Crowe according to the press reports. I guess by your logic that makes her guilty of something. Can you tell us what crime she committed?

    Second, how do you know Wilson hasn’t hired a lawyer? Because the press hasn’t told you?

    Third, how do you know who else has been subpoened and which of them has hired lawyers? All we’ve heard about in the press is that three people testified and we know at least two of them hired lawyers. So, do you get your information by hanging out at the federal courthouse on a regular basis or are you just making this stuff up?

    You can put the word ONLY in capital letters as often as you want, but that doesn’t make you any less wrong. Smith hired a lawyer because of Thomas and Arpaio’s threats and that’s just smart.

  9. Glick:

    Smith and Stapely have a behavioral heritage to uphold!

    There just the most recent speicimens of a particular breed which has infested their respective positions over the past four or five decades!

  10. Glick – you’re wrong. Smith hired a lawyer because he is up to something and it’s about to come out.

    I didn’t say he was guilty. I’ll wait to see what happens. But Smith is a big part of the problem. Remember all the other county elected officials said he is the major problem in the county. That includes officers not at war the the corrupt BOS.

  11. It’s being reported at that no one from the county attorney’s office has been approached by the federal investigators. This tells us that the federal investigation is not looking into Andrew Thomas. Since Thomas has been half of the investigation with Arpaio into David Smith and the Supervisors, this tells you that any federal investigation into THAT dispute is probably centering on Smith. As it should. He has been covering up for the Supervisors for years now. They have set him up to be the fall guy, and now he’s falling.

  12. I’m gonna need more popcorn!

  13. Frank:

    One anonymous blogger’s version of events isn’t reporting. It is an unsupported rumour. It may be made up or it may be true, but you can’t give any credence to an unidentified speaker paraphrasing a “source.”


    Originally you claimed I was wrong because Smith was the ONLY (twice) witness to hire a lawyer. It turns out that one of Joe Arpaio’s people also hired a lawyer, but you won’t admit your error. Instead you now claim to know that Smith was “up to something.” So Loretta Barkell is also up to something?

    Look, maybe David Smith is crooked. I don’t know. I haven’t heard or read any evidence to suggest he is, but I’m hardly in a position to know either. All I know is that Thomas and Arpaio have made it clear they think he’s a crook and, under such circumstances, hiring a lawyer like Mike Black is a no brainer. Reading anything more into it is pure speculation. Taking delight in it like Nuze and other bloggers here is uninformed wishful thinking.

Leave a Reply