Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio upheld by court

    Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio upheld by court

    Attempts by left-wing interest groups to overturn the pardon were frivolous, and Arpaio may file a motion for attorney’s fees.

    In late August, we covered the attempts of certain leftist interest groups to challenge the pardon granted former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio by President Trump.

    Media and activist Trump-Derangement-Syndrome types like Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post gave credence to the arguments against a pardon, but there never was any there there, as I wrote in Overblown hype about Court scheduling oral argument in dismissal of Arpaio conviction.

    And so it has come to pass. Yesterday the Judge upheld the pardon. The electronic docket has only this short form Minute Entry (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post), referring to reasons stated on the record:

    For the reasons stated on the record, the Court finds that the pardon is valid.

    Argument held on Defendant’s motion [to vacate all prior Orders in the case].

    IT IS ORDERED that this action for criminal contempt is dismissed with prejudice.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking under advisement whether the Court will enter any further orders.

    Defense counsel Goldman asks the Court to explain why it granted the Motions for Leave to File Amici Curiae
    Briefs and whether the Court will consider sanctions against the individuals who filed the amicus briefs and states
    that Defendant should be entitled to attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the briefs. The Court stated that
    such a request would be considered if a motion were filed.

    Since the transcript is not yet available, I have to rely on news reports for the Judge’s reasoning. The Arizona Republic reports:

    The judge called criminal contempt “an offense against the United States,” and she remarked that former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will “escape punishment for his willful violation” of a court order.

    But in the end, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton determined Wednesday that she had no choice but to validate Arpaio’s Aug. 25 pardon by President Donald Trump and throw out the finding of guilt in his criminal contempt case because he had not yet been sentenced and was not afforded an opportunity to appeal the verdict.

    Arpaio’s attorneys asked during a Wednesday morning hearing in Phoenix that all of the rulings during the contempt proceedings be discarded. Bolton has taken that request under advisement.

    Arpaio did not attend the hearing. When reached at home by telephone, he said he had not yet spoken to his attorneys.

    But his response was in classic Arpaio style:

    “I’m happy the conviction was dismissed, especially since I am not guilty,” he told The Arizona Republic, “and I will be addressing that issue in the near future.”

    And though that statement hinted at retribution, Arpaio would not let on what he had in mind.

    That the court took “under advisement” the request to vacate all prior Orders in the case (as opposed to just the conviction) is not surprising. While the validity of the pardon was crystal clear, whether it requires vacating everything that has happened in the case so far is less clear (though I think it does). NPR reports on that issue:

    The judge is considering a request from Arpaio to throw out the ruling that explains his guilty verdict. In the ruling, Bolton cited television interviews and news releases in which the sheriff made comments about keeping up the patrols, even though he knew they were no longer allowed.

    Arpaio’s attorneys have said the requests are aimed at clearing Arpaio’s name and barring the ruling’s use in future court cases as an example of a prior bad act. “This is a matter of basic fairness,” said Arpaio attorney Jack Wilenchik.

    Perhaps there’s a hint of one part of the retribution, the request during the hearing for permission to file a motion against the groups and individuals who filed Amicus Briefs arguing the court should reject the pardon. The Judge said she’ll rule on that when such a motion is filed.

    Though that’s not much of retribution, since those groups are well-funded, and there are plenty of donors to cover any attorney’s fees against individuals.


    Joseph Arpaio Criminal Contempt Case – Order Upholding Pardon by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Clinton pardons Marc Rich assorted criminals, Obama pardons terrorist bombers and they don’t blink an eye. And some of them paid bribes to get the pardon–which is okay if you pay a Clinton or Obama.

    Didn’t hear any judges commenting on those.

      Ragspierre in reply to JOHN B. | October 6, 2017 at 9:44 pm

      Nobody that I know of brought a case into any judge’s court WRT those pardons.

      Judges consider pleadings. That’s their job. They have to give everyone an opportunity to make their case, up to a point. As I’ve pointed out, they don’t, and can’t hand-wave a case away. That would violate procedure, and set up a meritorious appeal.

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | October 8, 2017 at 7:51 am

        Hmmm, these weren’t pleadings, they were amici, or more accurately hostes curiae, so she didn’t have to give them the time of day or even allow them to file in the first place. But refusal to do so would be very unusual. And I see no reason to believe she spent so much as a second actually deliberating on them. Contemplating their filers’ foolishness, maybe.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend