The Attorney General’s Office has ruled District Attorney John
Sarsfield doesn’t have a conflict of interest in overseeing the
District 5 election investigation, giving the embattled prosecutor
a renewed authority over the four-month-old probe.
The Attorney General’s Office has ruled District Attorney John Sarsfield doesn’t have a conflict of interest in overseeing the District 5 election investigation, giving the embattled prosecutor a renewed authority over the four-month-old probe.
So Sarsfield, for now, has discretion to either charge Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz and his campaign adviser Ignacio Velazquez or dismiss an array of alleged campaign violations.
He hasn’t divulged his intentions since the previously unrevealed opinion came down from the Attorney General’s Office about two weeks ago. Previously, state press spokesman Nathan Barankin had said an announcement on the probe’s direction would have to come from Sarsfield, who has declined to comment.
On Friday, Barankin revealed the state’s decision.
“Based on the information we have received, we don’t see a disqualifying conflict of interest.” Barankin said, adding, “the key element being, based on what we’ve seen so far, but that could change.”
After Velazquez filed an embarrassing court motion in May to remove Sarsfield from advising a grand jury probe to consider felony indictments, the prosecutor postponed that investigation and requested advice from the state. He sent a report to the Attorney General’s Office six weeks ago.
He questioned if the motion’s highly personal claim – that he’s having an affair that clouds his judgment – prejudiced him against the De La Cruz camp. Velazquez alleged Sarsfield was having an affair with the niece of a leader in the local LULAC organization, which spurred many of the fraud allegations.
Sarsfield, who has denied the affair, didn’t return a phone call to his cell phone over the weekend.
Now the district attorney has the election probe back on his plate – on top of two other consuming obstacles.
Two women in his office filed a complaint in June for the same alleged affair. And a group of residents recently launched a campaign to recall the district attorney.
Supervisor Bob Cruz, who lost the District 5 race by 10 votes, said he has communicated with the Attorney General’s Office and also recently learned of the ruling.
He believes the state office still may assume control of the investigation, he said.
“It’s in the hands of the AG and it’s in the hands of the state inspector, even though it’s been turned over to DA John Sarsfield,” Cruz said Saturday.
De La Cruz declined to comment on Sarsfield having discretion to pursue six felony convictions against him, some of which could lead to lifetime banishment from public office in California.
Velazquez said he’s not concerned about Sarsfield’s current handling of the matter. He maintains that disproving the allegations – which include illegal handling of ballots and coercing a voter, among others – would take a few phone calls by the district attorney.
“And he’ll find out what our (private) investigator found out,” Velazquez said. “And that is, the accusations all came from volunteers for the Bob Cruz campaign.”
After the election when the allegations emerged – at least some coming from Cruz supporters – De La Cruz and Velazquez were investigated by a county-appointed inspector.
The inspector’s report also recommended five felony charges against Velazquez.
Their lawyer Mike Pekin said they don’t plan to file another recusal motion against Sarsfield – as long as he “demonstrates balance and judgment” as the prosecutor. Pekin believes Sarsfield won’t file charges against his clients, he said.
He added he’s “heartened” that Cruz’s wife recently dropped her civil lawsuit – alleging many of the same complaints as in the criminal report – trying to nullify the race’s results. Her lawyer Harry Damkar said the state’s ruling didn’t influence the decision to dismiss the suit.
“We are far better off than before the grand jury was canceled,” Pekin said, “because as we speak there are no charges pending against Ignacio and Jaime, and there is no proceeding to do that.”
