Maricopa County Judge: Arizona Election Interference Investigator Misconduct Review Ordered

• Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby, indicted for election interference, alleges misconduct by lead investigator Special Agent Knuth.
• Crosby claims Knuth has a history of dishonesty, evidenced by a sealed grand jury transcript from an unrelated case.
• Maricopa County Judge Suzanne S. Marwil will conduct an *in camera* review of the sealed grand jury transcript to assess its contents.
• Knuth resigned from the Arizona Attorney General's office in January 2026 following an internal investigation into falsified statements and inaccurate timesheets.
• Prosecutors argue Crosby cannot access or use the sealed records, even if they confirm Knuth's alleged mistruths, due to state law and procedural issues.

Maricopa County Judge Suzanne S. Marwil has agreed to conduct an *in camera* review of a sealed grand jury transcript from an unrelated criminal case to determine if it contains false statements made by the lead investigator in Crosby's election interference proceedings.

Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby, a Republican, faces an indictment from 2022, alleging he conspired with another supervisor to obstruct the duties of an election officer by delaying the county canvass. In his defense, Crosby has raised serious questions regarding the integrity of Special Agent Knuth, the lead investigator in his election interference case. Crosby asserts that Knuth has a documented history of dishonesty, which he believes undermines the investigator's credibility and should lead to a re-evaluation of the charges against him.

These claims are not without basis. Special Agent Knuth resigned from the Arizona Attorney General's office in January 2026, following an internal investigation. This probe was initiated after Knuth was found to have submitted a police report containing falsified statements in the fall of 2025. Furthermore, the internal affairs investigation revealed that Knuth had inaccurately reported his working hours on official timesheets between October 2025 and January 2026. Crosby's defense team contends that this pattern of investigative misconduct casts doubt on the entire investigation into the supervisor's alleged actions.

In response to Crosby's assertions, Maricopa County Judge Suzanne S. Marwil has agreed to conduct an *in camera* review of a sealed grand jury transcript from an unrelated criminal case. The purpose of this review is to ascertain whether the transcript indeed contains false statements made by Special Agent Knuth, as Crosby's defense team suggests. Crosby argues that if these alleged mistruths are confirmed, it would significantly impeach Knuth's credibility and warrant a remand of his own case back to a grand jury, free from potentially tainted testimony.

Arizona state law generally prohibits individuals, including Crosby, from directly accessing sealed records. However, Judge Marwil's *in camera* review offers a potential pathway to verify Crosby's claims without granting him full access to the confidential document. If the review substantiates Crosby's theory, Judge Marwil indicated that Crosby would not have a "particularized need" to access the complete transcript. Should the transcript's contents differ from Crosby's allegations, she plans to solicit further arguments from the involved parties at a later date. Notably, Judge Marwil also remarked in court that Crosby likely possesses sufficient evidence of Knuth's past mistruths, adding, "I think the state concedes that."

The sealed transcript in question stems from the prosecution of Sandra Russell, a former candidate for Cochise County Superior Court, who faced perjury charges concerning her residency qualifications. In that case, Russell successfully moved to remand her indictment, arguing that Knuth had presented misleading evidence to the grand jury. Subsequently, a new grand jury declined to indict Russell when Knuth's testimony was omitted, highlighting the potential impact of his involvement. Crosby's legal team now seeks the full transcript from Russell's case, believing it crucial to substantiate their claims regarding Knuth's credibility.

Crosby's defense, represented by William Fischbach, intends to file a motion to reconsider a previously denied request to return the case to an unbiased grand jury. This strategy hinges on leveraging the alleged investigative misconduct of Special Agent Knuth to challenge the integrity of the initial indictment. However, the path to utilizing the sealed Russell transcript remains fraught with legal challenges. While state law mandates the production of sealed records for any person the state intends to call as a witness, prosecutors confirmed they do not plan to call Russell, thereby closing that specific legal avenue for Arizona sealed records disclosure. State prosecutor Casey Ball explicitly stated that "There’s no avenue for the defendant to get those transcripts."

Prosecutors further contend that even if Judge Marwil's *in camera* review confirms Crosby's allegations about Knuth, the underlying sealed nature of the documents would prevent their use in Crosby's case. Judge Marwil, however, suggested that the usability of such information might depend on how Crosby's team acquired the documents, instructing his attorneys to file a sealed affidavit detailing the procurement process. Furthermore, Judge Marwil raised a procedural concern, noting that a motion to reconsider might not be the appropriate legal vehicle for Crosby's argument. Since Knuth's alleged dishonesty was not an issue raised in the original motion to remand, introducing it now would constitute a new argument rather than a reconsideration of a prior ruling. This complex legal landscape underscores the significant hurdles Crosby's defense faces in challenging the Arizona election interference charges based on investigator misconduct.

Defense counsel in Arizona criminal cases should monitor this case for precedents on challenging investigator credibility and accessing sealed records, as it could impact strategies for challenging grand jury indictments based on prosecutorial or investigative misconduct.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service