Former Prosecutor Suspended For False Charges

A former prosecutor has been suspended for two years by an Arizona Hearing Panel

Ms. Sponsel was admitted to the State Bar of Arizona on May 12, 2004. She worked as a Deputy County Attorney (DCA) with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) from the time of her admission until March 2, 2021, when she was placed on administrative leave. MCAO terminated Ms. Sponsel on June 28, 2022, citing “a disturbing pattern of excessive charging and a failure to review available evidence.” Some of the conduct that prompted Ms. Sponsel’s termination is at issue in Count Two of the State Bar’s Complaint.

This link to a summary of the closing arguments  from ABC 15 in the bar case alleges that Respondent created a fictitious gang called ACAB (“All Cops Are Bastards”)

Arizona Family reports on the decision

Former Maricopa County prosecutor April Sponsel has been suspended from practicing law for two years after she was fired for falsely submitting street gang charges on a group of protestors in downtown Phoenix back in 2020.

The State Bar of Arizona confirmed her punishment on Tuesday. In the sentencing letter, the judge explained Sponsel’s actions had “far-reaching” and “deleterious consequences.” Her suspension goes into effect in 60 days, in the middle of February.

The disgraced deputy county attorney was fired in 2022 after the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office noted several job violations. At the time, MCAO officials said Sponsel showed incompetency, inefficiency, and neglect of duty in performing her job. Chief Deputy Paul Ahler noted “a disturbing pattern of excessive charging and a failure to review available evidence.”

The investigation all stemmed from an incident in Oct. 2020 where Phoenix police officers believed that a group of protestors was trying to block a light-rail train. At the time, police said some of the protestors in the group were carrying weapons like an AR-15, a pistol, a stun gun, a metal club, a brick, a knife, and smoke bombs. Court documents detailed that when the group ignored police commands to clear the street, a police lieutenant at the scene ordered the arrest of 15 protestors.

After the protestors’ arrest, Sponsel and veteran detective Karl Martin met with several law enforcement officials to discuss the possibility of charging the protestors with “assisting a criminal street gang.” Sponsel, who filed the indictment about a week later, was accused by a retired judge investigating the handling of the charges of working too closely with the police and misrepresenting evidence to the grand jury.

On Aug. 19, 2021, then-Phoenix City Manager Ed Zuercher released a report conducted by an independent investigation of the Phoenix Police Department in regard to the false charges made against the protesters. The report resulted in then-Police Chief Jeri Williams demoting three of her executive team — John Collins, Lawrence Hein and Gabriel Lopez — and placing Doug McBride, the officer at the center of the report, on administrative leave.

Decision linked here.

Conflicting evidence was presented about Ms. Sponsel’s “character or reputation.” Lawyers who have litigated against her described her as unreasonable, untrustworthy, too closely aligned with law enforcement, and “very inflammatory, very over the top.” On the other hand, attorneys who have worked with Ms. Sponsel as colleagues testified she is hard-working, honest, and diligent. Perhaps the most objective testimony came from retired Judge Sherry Stephens, who had the opportunity to observe Ms. Sponsel over a period of years in the context of hearings, trials, and settlement conferences. Judge Stephens praised Ms. Sponsel’s professionalism, diligence, and integrity. Considering the totality of the evidence, the hearing panel gives some mitigating weight to Ms. Sponsel’s character or reputation.

Although lack of a disciplinary history is often accorded substantial mitigating weight, that is not necessarily so when a lawyer refuses to recognize the wrongfulness of his or her conduct. See In re Bemis, 189 Ariz. 119, 122-23 (1997) (“Although respondent has no prior disciplinary record in ten years of practice, he apparently still fails to recognize the wrongful nature of his conduct. . . . The court is most concerned with respondent’s refusal to accept that his conduct cannot be justified by any perceived unfairness in the judges’ rulings.”); Shannon, 179 Ariz. at 74 (“Respondent’s failure to comprehend what was apparent to 14 people disturbs this court because Respondent is likely to repeat that which he fails to understand.”). Ms. Sponsel steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any misconduct or even unintentional missteps.

The aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.

(Mike Frisch)