The San Benito County District Attorney’s Office will be allowed
to prosecute a child molestation case and a related annoying phone
call case after one recusal motion was withdrawn Friday and another
denied last month.
Hollister – The San Benito County District Attorney’s Office will be allowed to prosecute a child molestation case and a related annoying phone call case after one recusal motion was withdrawn Friday and another denied last month.
A judge granted public defender Greg La Forge’s request to withdraw a recusal motion Friday. La Forge is the attorney for Corbett LeGrand, who faces child molestation charges. La Forge said he withdrew his motion because another recusal motion against the DA filed by defense attorney Harry Damkar in a connected case was denied by a judge in November.
“After the court ruled in the case that I figured was the stronger of the two, I figured there was no reason to waste money and court time with something that would probably be denied anyway,” La Forge said. “But I think there is a conflict.”
La Forge sought to recuse the DA’s office from prosecuting his client because he claimed a volunteer in the office was involved in interviewing witnesses and allegedly misrepresented his authority.
The volunteer, Andy Simpson, left the DA’s office in August after reports surfaced in the Free Lance that he had shown up to traffic stops impersonating a sworn cop, which he is not.
The recusal motion filed by Damkar in October was denied by Judge Steven Sanders last month because the judge felt there was no conflict between the DA’s office and Damkar’s client, Damkar said.
Damkar sought to recuse the District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting charges of making an annoying phone call, a misdemeanor, against his client because he believed the prosecutor was retaliating for criticism his client made about the possibility of the LeGrand case being dismissed.
Damkar’s client is a relative of the victim LeGrand allegedly assaulted and complained to the DA’s office after learning the molestation case could be dismissed. Shortly after the confrontation, Sarsfield decided to prosecute the man for an annoying phone call complaint that had happened two months earlier.
“We believe we had enough (evidence), the judge, however, felt we didn’t,” Damkar said. “He did allow us the opportunity to refile the motion… if we believe we have enough evidence later.”
Damkar and La Forge also asked the Attorney General’s Office to review the cases and make recommendations about the recusals. The Attorney General’s Office ruled there was no conflict and no basis for recusal in the LeGrand case, according to a written statement.
District Attorney John Sarsfield said he was confident from the get-go the motions didn’t have merit.
“When push comes to shove they never back it up,” Sarsfield said. “And the court summarily ruled against them.”
Both men are awaiting trial, Sarsfield said.
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or [email protected]
