Yes, put it on the record…Excellent…
The judge’s move comes just one day after Arpaio’s attorneys called out media companies for reporting that the ex-sheriff was convicted or racial profiling. They said the conviction had nothing to do with race.
Not directly, no. It has to do with dingleberry flagrantly ignoring a court order to stop using his position to impose his racism on Arizona’s Latino community.
So now we know: Trump’s very Nixonian promise to restore “Law and Order” doesn’t apply to Republican’t WASPs…
(Or maybe, when Trump promised that, he was under the impression that his favorite TV show had been cancelled. It’s hard to tell with this guy…)
How can Arpaio seek dismissal of the case? Isn’t acceptance of the pardon an admission of guilt? Had he fought the conviction through appeal after sentencing, he might still be able to argue his innocence but accepting a pardon used to mean that he was guilty. A pardon is not exoneration but mercy.
“But Your Honor, transitively the laws and their customary interpretation don’t apply to Sheriff Joe, either!!. Because MAGA!!”
Trump: Obama’s judges are running rampant. Or they must have Rapist blood in them. Not Real Amerikans.
Absolutely. Get that all down in black and white. While it won’t change the outcome, thanks to Don the Con, it’ll still leave a stain.
One man’s stain is another man’s Badge of Honor. Besides, laws are for suckers. And Democrats. But my Republican’t friends would say I’m being redundant…
Hopefully it will include cameras. Should be an entertaining event.
Little Donnie is going to have a temper tantrump over this. I wonder what he will accuse this judge of?
If a pardon materializes before sentencing, does that not activate a legal trick bag for this defendant? In other words, it would seem, a “hands are tied” response from the bench to not consider the pardon, because it is immaterial, but to proceed to the perp walk. With guilt tacitly admitted via the pardon, the judge must take the case to its ultimate resolution for this court. The judge cannot declare an end of the process just because a pardon appeared. The pardon, if it were to take effect, could only occur after the sentencing. Right?
They’re so dumb they’re screwing up a pardon, and all because Arapaio can’t stand to be called what he is, which is racist.
Makes sense. Judges don’t run into presidential pardons every day. It would be nice for counsel to explain precisely the scope and effect of the pardon, including any requirements or implications about admission of guilt, remorse, and so on. Also, the court is self-interested in the matter, i.e., it is the victim of the crime in question (contempt of court), and it has a special standing to press for a full elucidation of the relevant law and facts before making any decision about an alleged pardon. It is also entitled to express an opinion about the matter, even if the pardon is granted.
EDIT: And now this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.a09b565d9725
Now here’s a question: If Arpaio refuses to admit guilt (and therefore technically rejects the pardon) but simultaneously insists that the case be terminated, is he in (different) contempt? Could, just in our imagination, a finding of civil contempt be issued to compel him to admit guilt if he wants the pardon?
Accepting a pardon is an admittance of guilt. The sentencing is basically now just saying. “you have pleaded guilty in this matter, and the court therefore finds you guilty”. Any actual penalties are moot, however, but the conviction stands.
Which is where Arpaio has serious civil litigation exposure now. He has been (or soon will be) convicted of the crime, as well as also admitting his own guilt. The saving grace for him is that the conviction was on a fairly narrow charge, so he still has 5th Amendment protection of the underlying crimes. (His trial was about refusing a court order, and that is what the pardon covered. The actionable incidents and crimes that the first court was ordering him to stop doing, were not pardoned.)
I think the first task for the judge is to try to understand the precise basis of this pardon (the text of which I can’t seem to find anywhere, which is a crucial gap in the data). Normally, pardons are the result of a petition for clemency handled by the Office of the Pardon Attorney (at the DOJ); and the Pardon Attorney
routinely requests the United States Attorney to solicit the views and recommendation of the sentencing judge.
This would seem to be doubly pertinent in this case, where the judge stands not only in the position of the putative sentencing authority but also in the position of the complainant. Also, per the DOJ guidance statement (https://www.justice.gov/pardon/about-office-0):
In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner’s demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The Department’s regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2).
In order to determine whether the applicant is meritorious, post-conviction conduct and acceptance of responsibility are very important considerations (see the guidance statement).
The Arpaio pardon is therefore abnormal.
To answer your query, it is an open question whether or not acceptance of a pardon implies an admission of guilt, since pardons are sometimes granted in cases of miscarriage of justice, and Trump has made statements to the effect that Arpaio was wrongfully convicted. This is all something for the judge to get into. If, as you say, Arpaio asserts his innocence in the face of his settled conviction, the judge may well refuse to set aside the conviction on the grounds that it is unclear if the court has the power to do so in such a case–which also involves, let’s not forget, the violation by the defendant of the constitutional rights of US citizens. The judge may see fit to, in effect, refer the matter to higher authority by way of the appeal system.
In any case, just because Arpaio has been pardoned doesn’t give him a carte blanche to do what he likes in the future. It’s also an interesting question to what extent the underlying actions–the racial profiling etc.,–are still capable of being the subject of prosecution, or whether Trump’s pardon was so broadly worded as to draw a line beneath all of it. Again, such a broad pardon may well be problematic and subject to legal scrutiny.
It’s actually a big mess. As usual, Trump is warping the system in unprecedented ways. We may not have heard the last of this.
I fully anticipate NO Judge (and perhaps no Justice) will ever rule in his favor again. Their ethics and professional values may force them into backing Trump on occasion, but I believe the default position of most judges will now be to rule against him.
I am astounded that Arpaio’s lawyers would go along with this. It’s idiotic. It just presents Judge Bolton with a national platform to get back at der Furor for his attacks on her, and on the justice system generally. Expect her to use it.
Welcome to reality: a pardon is not clean cut