Arizona High Court Upholds Prosecutor’s Suspension

Judge with gavel and Supreme Court nameplate.

Arizona’s Supreme Court upheld a two-year suspension for former prosecutor April Sponsel who charged protesters with gang offenses based on minimal evidence review, leaving her career in ruins and raising questions about prosecutorial accountability.

Quick Takes

The Arizona Supreme Court confirmed former prosecutor April Sponsel’s two-year suspension for ethics violations
Sponsel “knowingly” violated her duty to act in good faith when charging protesters in 2020
She filed gang-related charges against 15 protesters with minimal evidence review
Her misconduct resulted in her firing from the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in 2022

Court Confirms Prosecutorial Misconduct in Protest Cases

The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld the two-year professional suspension of April Sponsel, a former prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO), for ethical violations related to her handling of cases against protesters in 2020. The high court determined that Sponsel “knowingly” violated her duty to act in good faith when she charged 15 individuals with gang-related offenses following protests in Phoenix. This decisive ruling brings closure to a case that has highlighted concerns about prosecutorial overreach and proper evidence review in politically charged cases during a period of nationwide demonstrations.

According to court documents, Sponsel failed to properly review evidence before filing serious gang charges against protesters. Despite having access to over 100 hours of police body camera footage and 250 pages of police reports, Sponsel proceeded with the charges after minimal review. The court found that she not only failed to examine the evidence before charging but also neglected to review the charges as litigation progressed, causing significant harm to the defendants who faced potential prison sentences for what were otherwise minor offenses.

Investigation Reveals Pattern of Misconduct

The professional discipline case against Sponsel originated after ABC15’s “Politically Charged” investigation in February 2021 exposed serious issues with how protesters were being prosecuted in Maricopa County. The investigation revealed that Sponsel had worked with Phoenix police to bring questionable charges against demonstrators, ultimately leading to the dismissal of over 40 felony cases. Despite the mounting evidence against her, Sponsel maintained her innocence throughout her disciplinary trial, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing in her handling of the cases.

The consequences for Sponsel were severe. She was placed on administrative leave by the MCAO on March 2, 2022, and officially terminated from her position in June of that same year. The State Bar of Arizona filed ethical charges against her, resulting in the two-year suspension that was recently upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court. This case has become a significant example in President Trump’s administration of the importance of maintaining ethical standards within the justice system, even when handling cases related to politically divisive issues.

Broader Implications for Prosecutorial Accountability

The Sponsel case has broader implications for prosecutorial accountability nationwide. The charges in question were filed following protests in Phoenix that occurred after the deaths of George Floyd and Dion Johnson, a time of heightened tensions across the country. The MCAO’s initial decision to pursue gang-related charges against the protesters represented a significant escalation that could have resulted in lengthy prison terms for the accused. The subsequent investigation and dismissal of these charges highlighted serious flaws in the prosecutorial process.

The disciplinary panel’s decision to suspend Sponsel for two years in late 2023, now affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court, sends a clear message about the responsibilities prosecutors bear in ensuring justice is properly served. Legal experts note that the case demonstrates that prosecutors can and will be held accountable when they fail to uphold their ethical obligations. For conservative Americans concerned with proper application of law and order, the case represents an important check on potential abuses within the system while ensuring that legitimate protest rights are respected.