Principle of Prosecutorial Competence and Diligence in Charging Decisions

Introduction

In In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel, 2025 Ariz. LEXIS ___, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed a two-year suspension for a career prosecutor who repeatedly filed serious felony charges without adequate review of available evidence. April Sponsel’s conduct—bringing gang, assault, riot, and other charges against protesters and individuals in unrelated cases—raised fundamental questions about the ethical duties of prosecutors under the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (ERs). The key issues were whether Sponsel violated ER 1.1 (competence), ER 1.3 (diligence), ER 3.1 (good-faith claims), and ER 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to justice) by failing to investigate and by pursuing charges she knew or should have known lacked a factual and legal foundation. The parties were Sponsel, the respondent and former Maricopa County prosecutor, and the State Bar of Arizona, as disciplinary petitioner.

Summary of the Judgment

On April 11, 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the Presiding Disciplinary Judge’s two-year suspension of Sponsel, holding she violated ERs:

1.1 (Competence): Failing to investigate evidence and legal elements before charging;
1.3 (Diligence): Lacking promptness and thoroughness in reviewing reports and video;
3.1 (Meritorious Claims): Asserting charges without good-faith basis or non-frivolous argument;
8.4(d) (Prejudicial Conduct): Causing real harm to individuals, the public, and MCAO’s integrity.

The court rejected Sponsel’s pleas that the panel had applied an improper “reasonable likelihood of conviction” standard or that it intruded on prosecutorial charging discretion (ER 3.8(a) issues). It held the panel properly focused on her conduct under each ethical rule. It also found she knowingly initiated and maintained frivolous prosecutions and refused to acknowledge wrongdoing, aggravating the sanction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Martinez, 248 Ariz. 458 (2020): Defers to panel findings on fact but reviews legal conclusions de novo in attorney discipline.
In re Alexander, 232 Ariz. 1 (2013): Defines “good faith,” “frivolous,” and “knowingly” under ER 3.1; stresses attorneys must inform themselves of facts and law.
In re Wolfram, 174 Ariz. 49 (1993): Highlights higher competence standards in serious criminal matters.
In re Peasley, 208 Ariz. 27 (2004), and In re Zawada, 208 Ariz. 232 (2004): Provide sanction comparisons for prosecutorial misconduct.
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions: Guides analysis of duty, mental state, injury, and aggravating/mitigating factors.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning turned on the specific obligations prosecutors owe under ERs:

Competence (ER 1.1): A prosecutor must possess “knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary.” Sponsel’s failure to review over 140 videos, filler-style police reports, and gang-investigation materials before filing gang indictments violated this duty.
Diligence (ER 1.3): Lawyers must act with reasonable promptness. Sponsel filed serious charges despite contradictory reports and withheld evidence that would have negated her theories.
Meritorious Claims (ER 3.1): Bringing or defending proceedings requires a good-faith basis. The court found the gang and assault charges against the October 17 protesters, Charles Walker, and Richard Villa were objectively frivolous and that Sponsel knowingly advanced them.
Prejudicial Conduct (ER 8.4(d)): Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice occurs when a lawyer’s actions cause injury. Sponsel’s overcharging led to lengthy imprisonment, emotional harm, job loss, and distrust in the system.

Impact

This decision establishes a robust precedent that prosecutors—despite broad charging discretion—must meet baseline ethical obligations of competence and diligence before filing or maintaining charges. It clarifies:

Ethical review under ER 1.1 and 1.3 is distinct from constitutional probable‐cause analysis under ER 3.8(a).
Filing a charge without personally verifying available evidence can support disciplinary action.
“Knowing” misconduct under ER 3.1 does not require intent to violate ethics, only awareness of one’s actions and circumstances.

Future prosecutors will be required to document thorough factual and legal assessments prior to grand jury presentations or direct filings, with failure risking suspension or disbarment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Competent representation” (ER 1.1): Lawyers must learn the law and facts, investigate, and prepare—especially in high‐stakes criminal cases.
“Diligence” (ER 1.3): Timely and careful handling of a case; you cannot rely on “I was too busy.”
“Good faith basis” (ER 3.1): A claim is non-frivolous if, objectively, a reasonable lawyer could believe it has legal and factual support.
“Knowing” violation: You don’t have to intend to break the rules—you must simply be aware of what you’re doing and its context.
“Prejudicial to justice” (ER 8.4(d)): Any lawyer action that causes harm—like charging innocent people—undermines public confidence.

Conclusion

In re Sponsel underscores that prosecutorial discretion is not unfettered. The Supreme Court has fortified the rule that every prosecutor must, before seeking or continuing a prosecution, personally verify the factual record, engage in careful legal analysis, and maintain a good-faith basis for each charge. This decision will guide future disciplinary reviews, ensuring prosecutors honor their profound responsibility to seek justice rather than merely convictions.