Attorneys for fired Tucson police officer seek sanctions against Conover, case dismissal

Attorneys representing Ryan Remington are challenging in court the Pima County Attorney’s Office decision to indict the former Tucson police officer on one count of manslaughter after he shot and killed a man in a motorized wheelchair last year.

On Nov. 29, Remington was working off-duty security at a Walmart store when he fatally shot Richard Lee Richards, 61, nine times. Richards was accused of stealing a tool box and threatening a Walmart employee prior to the shooting. Remington was terminated from the department after the shooting.

Nine months after the shooting, the Pima County Attorney’s Office announced Remington’s indictment on a charge of manslaughter.

On Sept. 28, Remington’s attorneys, Michael Storie and Natasha Wrae, asked a court to sanction County Attorney Laura Conover, saying comments Conover made at a Democrats of Greater Tucson meeting caused irreparably damage to Remington’s ability to get a fair trial in Pima County.

Conover appeared in early September as a guest speaker at an online meeting of the Democrats’ group, according to the motion filed in Pima County Superior Court. Conover then took a question from the director about qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, asking her to describe what this term means and her office’s attitude toward it. Qualified immunity protects government officials, like police officers, from being sued in civil court for their actions.

Storie and Wrae say Conover sermonized and criticized the laws impacting her prosecution of Remington in her answer. According to a transcript of the meeting, Conover said, “what we found is that very clearly the laws in Arizona are designed to be protective when an officer-involved shooting has occurred.” Conover did not speak directly about the Remington case according to the transcript.

The motion said Conover also appeared to be saying that “even when an officer involved shooting is not justified, that the jury instructions, based upon current law, will nonetheless protect the officer and compel the jury to vote for acquittal.” It also claims Conover said it takes “backbone” to overlook these laws and convict officers.

Storie and Wrae said the comments Conover made were “outrageous” and she inappropriately injected her opinion into the discussion, claiming they would expect “such irresponsible and nonsensical remarks to be found on a random Twitter account.”

Since the meeting was public and can be viewed on Youtube, Storie and Wrae claim “more members of the potential jury pool are potentially infected with Conover’s personal and distorted views of the justification statue pertaining to Remington’s case.”

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Storie and Wrae requested that Conover personally appear at the hearing on the motion so she can justify her statements.

In addition to the motion for sanctions, Storie and Wrae also filed another motion to disqualify Pima County Attorney’s Office due to what they claim is a conflict of interest in the Remington case.

At the time of the shooting, Remington was a member of the Tucson Police Officers Association, which offers legal coverage for any on duty actions that result in criminal charges. The police union’s legal plan is defined by the Combined Law Enforcement Agencies of Arizona, therefore the officers’ association is a member organization, the motion said.

Tucson police Sgt. Jason Winsky, Conover’s brother, is the chairman for CLEAA and has been a board member for the past five years. Storie and Wrae said Winsky and the board are directly responsible for approving almost every expense related to Remington’s defense, causing a conflict of interest for Conover.

At the same Democrats’ meeting, Conover was asked about the conflict of interest, but she said her brother works on wages and pensions and has nothing to do whatsoever with the work she does, the motion said. Storie and Wrae said her claims are “a gross understatement of her brother’s role in managing CLEAA.”

The motion is asking the court to disqualify the county attorney’s office and dismiss the case.

When asked if Conover had a statement regarding the motions, a spokesperson for the county attorney’s office said the office cannot comment on the filings for ethical reasons because it is a pending matter. The spokesperson did say the office will be filing its own motion in response.

Storie’s court filings also indicate he will be seeking a change of venue for the trial.