Attorney claims conflict of interest in Williams School Board member case
Says Colusa County DA ‘regularly’ stays in a different county
Attorneys for a Williams School Board member accused of falsifying her place of residence during the election process recently filed a motion against the Colusa County District Attorney’s office, claiming District Attorney Matthew Beauchamp “regularly” stays in a different county.
According to the Colusa County District Attorney’s office, an initial complaint against Rosa Orozco-lopez was made in August 2016.
An internal investigation contracted by the school, found last month that Orozco-lopez does officially reside in Williams.
Defense attorneys Christopher Cannon and Daniel Olmos are representing Williams School Board member Orozco-lopez since her arrest in April.
The lawyers said they weren’t accusing Beauchamp of breaking the law; but pointed out their client is not, either.
Based on legal documents filed by Cannon and Olmos as a motion to recuse Beauchamp, Beauchamp purchased a property in Nevada County in 2000 where he currently “resides regularly.” Orozco-lopez’s attorneys also report that Beauchamp’s wife worked for the Williams School District during the 2017-18 year.
In 2013, he purchased a smaller home in Colusa County after his election as Chief Deputy District Attorney two years earlier. In February 2018, Beauchamp filed election-related material stating his Colusa address is his primary residence.
“We are not stating that Mr. Beauchamp is violating the law,” Cannon said in an email over the weekend. “Mr. Beauchamp, by the law, is a resident of Colusa County. He is not violating the law; nor is Ms. Orozco-lopez.”
In response, the district attorney says that argument is “illogical.”
“Defendant (Orozco-lopez) asserts that her conduct cannot be prosecuted because she alleges the District Attorney has done the same. This is irrelevant, illogical, and juvenile. No conflict is alleged,” the Colusa District Attorney’s Office official responded. “... She provides speculation, red herrings, and childish mud-slinging.”
“Their motion is spurious ... we don’t believe they have any grounds,” Beauchamp said in an interview with the Appealdemocrat Monday.
An official decision will be made during a re-setting of a preliminary hearing at the Colusa County Superior Court July 18.