A normally trivial charge may erupt into possible involvement
from the attorney general’s office
– with a local lawyer asking the state agency to disqualify the
district attorney and investigate a former office volunteer
suspected of impersonating a cop.
Hollister – A normally trivial charge may erupt into possible involvement from the attorney general’s office – with a local lawyer asking the state agency to disqualify the district attorney and investigate a former office volunteer suspected of impersonating a cop.
Attorney Harry Damkar is making the request to bring in the state agency, he said. He suspects DA John Sarsfield charged his client with making an annoying phone call – a misdemeanor – only as retaliation because the man, a relative of the alleged victim in a sexual assault case against Corbett Legrand, cried foul when hearing the case may be dismissed.
Damkar wants the attorney general to recuse the prosecutor from the annoying phone call case.
The man, who the Free Lance is not naming because it could reveal the identity of the alleged victim, complained to the DA’s office after learning a molestation case involving his relative 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.
The annoying phone call complaint came during the investigation into the molestation charge, when Damkar’s client allegedly harassed someone connected to the Legrand case. A complaint was filed with the Hollister Police Department after the call in April.
Sarsfield, however, did not file charges against the man until June 23, five days after he had a confrontation with the DA’s office. The timing is alarming, Damkar said, and shows Sarsfield may be retaliating against his client.
“Is my client going to get a fair shake in his case? I’m not certain the district attorney’s office doesn’t have a conflict of interest,” Damkar said. “I believe at this point they couldn’t be fair to my client.”
Sarsfield vehemently denied the retaliation allegation. He pointed out that he didn’t initiate the criminal complaint for the annoying phone call charge and didn’t get involved until after it was investigated by local police. The Hollister Police Department referred it to Sarsfield on April 29, according to police.
That’s precisely the timing Damkar is questioning, though, because Sarsfield waited nearly two months – and five days after the man’s verbal confrontation with prosecutors – to file charges for an annoying phone call.
Sarsfield doesn’t buy Damkar’s theory, though. He said it’s another example of a known adversary – Damkar – trying to taint his image. They’ve been quarreling publicly since Sarsfield succeeded Damkar as San Benito County District Attorney and almost immediately started complaining about an alleged backlog of cases left behind.
“I suspect what’s really going on here is (Damkar’s client) is probably being used by other persons for their own reasons,” Sarsfield said Thursday.
Damkar said he’s not accusing anybody of misconduct. Though he says there’s an appearance of it, which he believes should justify a third-party review from the state.
But Damkar’s request to the state doesn’t end there. When the man hired Damkar, he told him something else the attorney believes should prompt state involvement.
The witness claims former district attorney volunteer William “Andy” Simpson, during the case, showed up to his house wearing a badge and gun while claiming to be a deputy district attorney, Damkar said.
Furthermore, Damkar complained in a written statement released to the Free Lance this week that Simpson was given access to confidential information about the sexual assault victim, and that he was involved in interviews with her.
Simpson left the office the week of Aug. 16 – about the same time questions arose in a Free Lance report that he had been showing up to traffic stops impersonating a sworn cop, which he is not.
Simpson didn’t return a call to his cell phone Thursday.
Damkar also contends the controversy surrounding Simpson – who had been involved with the Legrand case – may have been the reason prosecutors dropped the case Aug. 18. It has since been re-filed.
Sarsfield denied that charge as well and said cases have to be re-filed “from time to time.” Sarsfield said his understanding of the dismissal related to the Santa Cruz County DA’s office filing separate charges against Legrand for violating probation on a prior conviction for committing a lewd act with a minor in 2001. That case is set for hearing Oct. 27, according to the Santa Cruz office.
“The entire premise of his complaint is not supported by the facts,” Sarsfield said.
Kollin Kosmicki covers politics for the Free Lance. Reach him at 637-5566, ext. 331 or kk*******@fr***********.com.
