Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas on Wednesday filed criminal charges against Gary Donahoe, presiding criminal judge of Superior Court, accusing him of hindering prosecution, obstructing a criminal investigation and bribery.

The three felony charges relate to Donahoe's handling of criminal investigations into county officials, particularly a controversial court tower under construction in downtown Phoenix.

Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who stood side by side during a news conference Wednesday, have repeatedly questioned the $340 million joint project of the Superior Court and Maricopa County government.

The charges claim Donahoe failed to disclose an attorney-client relationship with two lawyers hired to represent the county on issues related to the court tower's construction and Thomas and Arpaio's ongoing investigations.

Donahoe would not comment on the charges Wednesday.

The sheriff and the county attorney have battled elected and appointed county officials for more than a year.

The charges against Donahoe come a week after Thomas and Arpaio filed a suit in federal court alleging racketeering and conspiracy among county officials, judges including Donahoe, and private attorneys.

And they come a day after Thomas announced criminal indictments against county Supervisors Don Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox.

On Wednesday, Thomas declared that county government is corrupt because of a "triad" that includes the Board of Supervisors, the court and the private attorneys.

He also suggested that there will be ongoing criminal investigations and possibly more criminal charges against the other defendants named in the federal suit.

The charges were released hours before Donahoe was scheduled to hear arguments on whether the Board of Supervisors and county management have authority over Thomas' appointment of a pair of outside prosecutors to investigate allegations against Stapley.

County officials have tried to block funding for their appointment and asked a court to rule on the issue, which Thomas said was related to the obstruction charge against Donahoe.

Donahoe canceled the hearing Wednesday morning, though Thomas said he should have vacated it because of conflict of interest as soon as he was named a defendant in the federal suit.

"The hearing itself (would have been) a crime," Thomas said, because it would reveal grand-jury information. Thomas stopped short of saying the various legal actions were a strategy to stop Wednesday's hearing.

Direct complaint

According to the complaint, Donahoe, who has been presiding criminal judge since early 2008, quashed grand-jury subpoenas relating to the court tower without revealing an attorney-client relationship with Tom Irvine and Ed Novak, the attorneys who sought to have the subpoenas quashed on behalf of the county. That led to the hindering and obstruction charges.

Bribery has a broad definition under Arizona law, and Thomas said he does not believe any money changed hands. But he accused Donahoe of accepting an unspecified benefit from Irvine and Novak.

Donahoe had previously ruled that Thomas had a conflict of interest and could not proceed with the court-tower investigation because he could not prosecute county officials, whom he also represents as county attorney.

Tuesday's indictments and Wednesday's criminal complaint were quickly moved out of Maricopa County Superior Court.

Barbara Mundell, presiding judge of Maricopa County Superior Court, who also was targeted in the federal suit, referred the Stapley and Wilcox cases to the Pima County Superior Court, and the Donahoe matter to the Arizona Supreme Court. Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch ordered that the case be heard by Judge William O'Neil of Pinal County Superior Court.

'Unprecedented' step

Although judges are not immune from prosecution - a Maricopa County Superior Court judge was convicted of marijuana possession in the late 1980s - court observers cannot recall a judge charged by the county attorney in his own court.

James Belanger, a Phoenix defense attorney who represents lawyers on ethical issues with the State Bar of Arizona, called Thomas' latest action unprecedented.

"This is, in my opinion, an abuse of process," he said. He said the move is intended to create a legal conflict, forcing judges off of Thomas' cases. "And that, in my opinion, violates Arizona's ethical rules of professional responsibility for lawyers."

Stephen Gerst, a retired Superior Court judge and Phoenix School of Law professor, said many of the allegations against Donahoe were based on his actions in open court and therefore protected.

"I've never seen (a criminal complaint) filed against a sitting judge before except by a prisoner," Gerst said. "It's almost a complete defense unless a judge is acting outside the scope of his employment."

Belanger said if Thomas believed Donahoe committed a crime, he had other options.

"It strikes me that you could have, for example, asked the FBI . . . the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Attorney General's Office to investigate," he said.

But Thomas and Arpaio say they are investigating Attorney General Terry Goddard, and on Wednesday, Thomas acknowledged that the U.S. Attorney's Office was not interested in a previous case he pursued against Stapley. Charges in that case, involving financial-disclosure issues, were dropped or dismissed, though some issues remain on appeal.

Judicial review

Donahoe, a former urban planner, received his law degree from Arizona State University in 1979, and he was a civil attorney in private practice until he became a court commissioner in 1989. In 2000, he was appointed to the Superior Court bench as a judge and kept a low profile until Presiding Judge Mundell appointed him to head the criminal bench early last year.

Superior Court judges in Arizona's two largest counties, Maricopa and Pima, are appointed to the bench by the governor, who picks from a short list vetted by a merit-selection committee. Judges in all other counties are publicly elected.

Every four years, the merit-selected judges are evaluated by questionnaires filled out by attorneys and court customers, then stand for a "retention" election in which voters decide whether they should stay in office. All judges are not evaluated in every election, and only two judges have ever been ousted from office; the last was in 1974. Even Philip Marquardt, the judge convicted of drug possession, was retained, although he voluntarily left the bench.

The Arizona Supreme Court maintains authority over all courts.

Donahoe's last Judicial Performance Review, in 2002, resulted in most respondents rating him as "very good" or "superior."

Donahoe must appear before a judge for an initial appearance within 10 days. He then must have a preliminary hearing before a judge or be indicted by a grand jury within 20 days after that.