Saturday, March 8, 2014
By Matt Hongoltz-Hetling firstname.lastname@example.org
(Continued from page 1)
“You don’t want to charge someone if you don’t have a substantial likelihood that you’re going to prevail,” Stokes said.
Pratt said she did not anticipate any other charges being filed related to this case.
Stokes said he has reviewed Pratt’s decision, and he supports it.
“I trust her judgment,” he said, adding that he will continue to monitor the case to review any possible plea deals or other prosecutorial decisions.
Stokes said the attorney general’s office is called upon to review criminal cases involving people who have some sort of relationship with the prosecuting district attorney — in this case, someone who was then a police chief. Generally, he said, no actual conflict of interest is present, but the attorney general’s office gets involved to blunt the perception that such a conflict could exist.
“They’re really not conflicts so much as they’re uncomfortable,” he said. “It’s not like you’re prosecuting your mother.”
The dispositional court conference originally was scheduled for Wednesday, but McKee asked that it be postponed a week for additional time to review documents related to the case “and conduct a necessary follow-up investigation.”
McKee said Wednesday that he was still reviewing the police reports, which he had received earlier this month.
The case against the former police chief will be treated the same as any other, he said.
“I am highly confident that he’ll be treated no worse, or no better, than anyone else before the courts,” he said.
Matt Hongoltz-Hetling — 861-9287