An Orange County prosecutor facing possible state bar sanctions over allegations that she improperly withheld evidence during a 2013 child-abuse trial testified Thursday that she “did absolutely nothing wrong.”

Deputy District Attorney Sandra Lee Nassar, in two days of hearings in a California State Bar courtroom in Los Angeles, said of the allegations, “It is repulsive to me to think someone would even say that about me.

“If I thought I made a mistake, I would admit I made a mistake,” she said. “I’m a public servant. I would never violate that trust.”

Attorneys with the state bar have not yet indicated if they will seek to have Nassar disbarred, or if they will push for a lesser sanction.

Hugh Radigan, a deputy trial counsel for the State Bar of California, alleged in his opening statements on Wednesday that Nassar “willfully suppressed evidence to the detriment” of Carmen William Iacullo II, serving a 12-year sentence for felony corporal injury to a child.

At Nassar’s direction, jail officials carried out a two-year “mail cover” investigation in which correspondence received and sent by Iacullo and the mother of the 5-year-old he was accused of abusing was intercepted and copied, with the copies turned over to the District Attorney’s Office.

Nassar testified that she initiated the mail cover in June 2011 because of concerns that Iacullo or the mother was going to try to determine where the boy had been moved, despite a court order barring them from contacting him. The boy was the key witness to the crime, and Nassar said she was worried about his safety.

The mail cover continued after the boy’s mother agreed to a plea deal for covering up the crime, which required she be willing to testify against Iacullo.

In April 2013, Nassar rotated out of the unit prosecuting the case. Jennifer Duke, the deputy district attorney who picked the case, testified that she was surprised that the letters from the mail cover, which numbered more than 1,000 pages, hadn’t been turned over to Iacullo’s defense attorney.

“She said, ‘Why would I?’” Duke testified when asked what Nassar’s explanation was for not turning over the letters.

“Does that strike you as cavalier and glib?” asked Kim Kasreliovich, a senior trial counsel with the State Bar of California.

“It struck me as odd at the time, that is why I remembered it,” Duke said.

Duke testified that after clearing it with her supervisor, she turned the mail cover information over to Joe Dane, the defense attorney representing Iacullo.

“When I looked at it, I was shocked at the volume and the length of time the mail cover had been in existence,” Dane testified.

Among the correspondence was a letter in which Iacullo’s former girlfriend, the mother of the boy, said he didn’t injure the boy and wasn’t even present at the time of the abuse.

Iacullo, who had been facing up to seven years to life in prison, ended up agreeing to a plea deal with a 12-year prison sentence.

In explaining the move to a plea deal, Assistant District Attorney Ted Burnett, who supervised Nassar and then Duke, noted that the letter the ex-girlfriend wrote to Iacullo would have made their case tougher to prove.

“Many of the letters, or at least some of them, repeatedly said, ‘I know you didn’t do this, I know you weren’t there,’ and she was supposed to be the star witness,” Burnett testified.

Nassar testified that she was waiting for a firm trial date until turning over the letters. Giving them to the defense ahead of time would have alerted Iacullo to the fact that his mail was being monitored, the prosecutor said.

Nassar also noted that because they were copying mail that Iacullo was receiving, he would have also been able to give the original letters to his attorney. Jails and prisons routinely open mail to ensure there is nothing illegal in the envelopes before handing the mail over to those inside.

The State Bar’s court is empowered to hear charges against attorneys and can recommend that the California Supreme Court suspend or disbar those found to have committed acts of misconduct.

Testimony is scheduled to continue on July 21, with the court’s judge expected to make a recommendation within 90 days of the trial’s conclusion.