ER - Attorney General's Office to get Arkley-Glass report

Attorney General's Office to get Arkley-Glass report
by Glenn Franco Simmons, 10/25/2007

A completed and confidential Eureka Police Department investigation into an alleged altercation involving local businessman and philanthropist Rob Arkley and Eureka City Councilmember Larry Glass will be forwarded to the California Attorney General’s Office for its consideration.

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said his office received the EPD report on Wednesday and he estimated it would be sent to the AGO either Wednesday or today, but no later.

Gallegos has previously told this newspaper that he considers Arkley a friend and that Arkley contributed to one of his political campaigns.

In explaining his reasoning for sending the report to the AGO, Gallegos said, “While I believe I can make a fair and impartial decision, I believe that, due to my relationship with both the parties and some of the anticipated witnesses, it is impossible to do so without creating the appearance of an impropriety.

“If the Attorney General’s Office decides not to accept the case, I will review it and make a decision. However, until such an occurrence takes place, I will withhold reviewing any material that is forwarded to us and making a decision regarding the possibility of any criminal charges being filed.”

When The Eureka Reporter contacted the AGO Wednesday, it had not yet received the EPD report; however, Senior California Assistant Attorney General Gerald Engler said, “If and when we receive a request from Mr. Gallegos, we will fully and fairly evaluate whether we should accept the matter based on whatever matters Mr. Gallegos brings to our attention.”

Engler had previously responded to a Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee request that the AGO intervene in this case because of what the HCDCC contended were “political conflicts.”

In rejecting the HCDCC’s request, Engler wrote a letter to the organization and said, “First and foremost, the district attorney is the elected prosecutor of Humboldt County. The law maintains a strong presumption that the district attorney — not the attorney general — will handle prosecutorial matters within the county. Only in extraordinary cases where an actual conflict of interest makes it unlikely that the district attorney can fairly prosecute the case may the district attorney be recused.

“A mere appearance of conflict is insufficient to warrant recusal. Thus, there are numerous cases where recusal has been denied even though the district attorney is called upon to prosecute cases involving county supervisors, sheriffs or other political officials. The mere fact that the case involves a political supporter or political opponent of the district attorney will almost never suffice to justify recusal.”

If the case is sent back to him, Gallegos explained he will determine if there is sufficient information on which to file criminal charges against Arkley.

“Specifically,” he said, “we can and will only file criminal charges if the following four basic requirements are satisfied:

“(1) based on a complete investigation and thorough consideration of all available evidence, the prosecutor believes the evidence shows that the accused is actually guilty of the crime charged;
“(2) there is legally sufficient, admissible evidence to establish the offense independently of any admissions of the accused;
“(3) there is legally sufficient, admissible evidence of the accused’s identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged; and

“(4) the prosecutor has considered the probability of conviction by an objective fact-finder hearing the admissible evidence and concluded that the anticipated admissible evidence is of such convincing force that it would warrant conviction by a reasonable and objective fact-finder after hearing all the evidence available to the prosecutor at the time of charging and after hearing the most plausible, reasonably foreseeable defense that could be raised under the evidence presented to the prosecutor.”

The case stems from an alleged altercation between the two men at a California Coastal Commission reception at the Avalon restaurant in Eureka in September.

In a previous interview with The Eureka Reporter, Glass said he filed the complaint with the EPD against Arkley alleging “assault and battery, menacing a public official and ... stalking.”

Arkley spokespersons have consistently maintained that Arkley did not shove or push Glass.

Both sides admit there was a verbal exchange, but their accounts are different.

Glass claims Arkley threatened to destroy him if he didn’t vote favorably for Marina Center.

However, Arkley’s spokespeople contend that Arkley made no such threat nor did he tell Glass that he was having the council member followed, as Glass also alleges.

Arkley apologized to Glass — an apology that Glass has not accepted.

Arkley family spokesperson Steve Glazer responded to the report of the case being forwarded to the DA’s Office by saying, “Larry Glass has been waging a campaign against the Arkley family for the past 18 months, ever since he heard that there could be a Best Buy in the Marina Center project.

“It is unfortunate that scarce police resources have been wasted on Glass’ political crusade.”

“I really don’t know what is going to happen next,” Glass said. “All I know is that I’m glad that I took a stand and did what I think to be the right thing as an elected official.”

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.