Key Points:

• Arizona Court of Appeals rules Pima County Attorney’s Office can prosecute Michael Creel

• Creel is accused of causing 2024 death of John McLean, a political supporter of Laura Conover

• The appellate court said Creel failed to show a clear appearance of impropriety

Just because a car crash killed a political supporter and campaign contributor to Pima County Attorney Laura Conover doesn’t mean her office can’t prosecute the man charged with causing the accident, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled.

In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel acknowledged that Michael Creel is accused of the 2024 death of John McLean. The victim had lost his bid for election to the state Senate the prior week and conceded his loss the night before the accident.

Creel is accused of — and awaiting trial on charges of — second degree murder, driving on a suspended license while intoxicated, and criminal damage.

But the appellate judges said that Creel has failed to show that there is an appearance of impropriety in having someone from Conover’s office pursue the case. They also noted that the prosecutor’s office has agreed to shield Conover from future involvement in the case.

And appellate Judge Gary Vásquez said that granting Creel what he wants would set a bad — and legally incorrect — precedent.

According to police reports, Creel is accused of speeding through a stop sign on East Broadway near North Houghton Road, colliding with a car driven by McLean. Investigators said he was speeding, struck the passenger side of McLean’s vehicle, sending it into and over a wall.

McLean died at the scene.

Creel’s preliminary blood-alcohol level was reported as 0.154 according to the criminal complaint; anything above 0.08 is considered presumptive evidence of driving while impaired.

After being indicted, Creel sought to disqualify the entire Pima County Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the case. He said its continued involvement created an appearance of impropriety.

As evidence, he cited a $700 contribution that McLean had made to Conover’s reelection campaign, their appearance on the same political ticket, and the pair’s public support for one another during the most recent campaign.

All that, Creel argued, created an appearance that Conover — and, by extension, her entire office — would harbor a heightened sympathy for McLean as a victim. He also said the office would prosecute his case more harshly than other similarly situated defendants.

Pima County Superior Court Judge Christopher Browning accepted his argument, saying the facts that Creel cited “reeked of, at a minimum, appearance of impropriety.” And the judge said that, as head of the county attorney’s office, Conover could not sufficiently screen herself from the case to satisfy a reasonable perception that the prosecution appeared fair.

Vásquez, writing for the appellate court, said even if Creel can provide sufficient evidence of the relationship between Conover and McLean, it did not rise to the level of “a very clear and very pronounced appearance of impropriety” that is necessary to disqualify an attorney.

And then there’s the precedent that would set.

“If political alliance alone could disqualify an elected county attorney from representing a party, the Pima County Attorney’s Office would potentially be subject to disqualification any time it represents elected officials of the same party as the county attorney who appeared on the same ballot,” Vásquez wrote. And he said there’s also the fact that the office “routinely represents various elected officials and the civil agencies they represent.”

Nor were the appellate judges swayed by that $700 donation.

“Absent extraordinary circumstances not present here, moderate campaign contributions such as McLean’s cannot form the basis for the type of ‘extreme circumstances’ ” that are necessary to disqualify an entire office.

“To hold otherwise would open the door to routine disqualification of county attorneys and their offices based solely on party affiliation or campaign contributions, a result that could seriously disrupt the functioning and efficiency of PCAO and other county attorney offices,” Vázquez wrote.

The appellate court also said that Creel has not provided any support for the claim that Conover was personally involved in the prosecution.

“He has not challenged PCAO’s apparent agreement to screen Conover from future involvement in the case,” Vásquez said. “And he has not argued, her or to the superior court, that Conover cannot be meaningfully screened under the circumstances.”