The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled the fact that a man killed in a car crash was a political supporter and campaign contributor to Pima County Attorney Laura Conover doesn't disqualify her office from prosecuting the driver charged with causing the collision.
Pima County Attorney Laura Conover
Michael Creel is accused in the Nov. 14, 2024, death of John McLean. The victim had lost his bid for election to the state Senate the prior week and conceded his loss the night before the crash.
John McLean
Creel is awaiting trial on charges of second-degree murder, driving on a suspended license while intoxicated, and criminal damage.
In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel said Creel failed to show there is an appearance of impropriety in someone from Conover's office pursuing the case. They also noted that the prosecutor's office has agreed to shield Conover herself from direct involvement in the case.
Appellate Judge Gary Vasquez said that to grant Creel his request to disqualify the entire Pima County Attorney's Office from prosecuting the case would set a bad and legally incorrect precedent.
According to police reports, Creel is accused of speeding through a stop sign on East Broadway near North Houghton Road, colliding with a car driven by McLean. Investigators said he struck the passenger side of McLean's vehicle, sending the car into and over a wall.
McLean died at the scene.
Creel's preliminary blood-alcohol level was reported as 0.154 according to the criminal complaint; anything at or above 0.08 is considered presumptive evidence of driving while impaired.
After being indicted, Creel asked the court to rule the Pima County Attorney's Office involvement in his prosecution created an appearance of impropriety.
As evidence, he cited a $700 contribution that McLean had made to Conover's reelection campaign; the fact that McLean and Conover, as Democrats, appeared on the same political ticket; and that the pair had publicly supported one another during the most recent campaign.
Creel argued that created an appearance that Conover, and by extension, her office, would harbor a heightened sympathy for McLean as a victim. He also said the office would prosecute his case more harshly than other similarly situated defendants.
Pima County Superior Court Judge Christopher Browning accepted his argument, saying the facts that Creel cited "reeked of, at minimum, appearance of impropriety.'' The judge said that, as head of the county attorney's office, Conover could not sufficiently screen herself from the case to satisfy a reasonable perception that the prosecution appeared fair.
But Vasquez, writing for the appellate court, said even if Creel can provide sufficient evidence of the relationship between Conover and McLean, it did not rise to the level of "a very clear and very pronounced appearance of impropriety'' that is necessary to disqualify an attorney.
He also cited the precedent that would set.
"If political alliance alone could disqualify an elected county attorney from representing a party, the Pima County Attorney's Office would potentially be subject to disqualification any time it represents elected officials of the same party as the county attorney who appeared on the same ballot,'' Vasquez wrote.
He said the office "routinely represents various elected officials and the civil agencies they represent.''
Nor were the appellate judges swayed by the $700 donation.
"Absent extraordinary circumstances not present here, moderate campaign contributions such as McLean's cannot form the basis for the type of 'extreme circumstances''' that are necessary to disqualify an entire office, they ruled.
"To hold otherwise would open the door to routine disqualification of county attorneys and their offices based solely on party affiliation or campaign contributions, a result that could seriously disrupt the functioning and efficiency of PCAO and other county attorney offices,'' Vazquez wrote.
The appellate court also said Creel has not provided any support for a claim that Conover was personally, directly involved in the prosecution.
"He has not challenged PCAO's apparent agreement to screen Conover from future involvement in the case,'' Vasquez said. "And he has not argued, here or to the superior court, that Conover cannot be meaningfully screened under the circumstances.''
