Arpaio files appeal to have criminal conviction removed

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY JOHN BOWDEN - 01/20/18 08:46 AM EST

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has filed to have a contempt of court conviction cleared as he officially kicks off his bid to be Arizona's next senator.

Local Arizona news station KTAR reports that Arpaio filed an appeal Friday with the U.S. District Court, arguing that Judge Susan Bolton “refused to give the Sheriff a trial by jury,” and that her “verdict was completely unsupported by the evidence, among numerous other reasons" when she found him in contempt of court for refusing to stop profiling Hispanics at traffic stops for immigration checks.

In October, following a presidential pardon of the sheriff, Bolton accepted that Arpaio would not face sentencing but did not vacate her ruling that found Arpaio guilty.

The former Arizona sheriff, who lost his reelection bid in 2016 after two decades on the job, was known as "America's Toughest Sheriff" and for his "Tent City" prison complex and oft-criticized brutal treatment of prisoners.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/369900-arpaio-files-to-have-conviction-reversed

[bullimiami]

1. How can he. He admitted guilt by accepting the pardon. What an ahole.

[Lindsay]

3. Hey, you can't expect

a sheriff to know the law!

[unblock]

4. that likely has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he can get the conviction vacated.

people who have confessed to crimes can and have gotten convictions vacated.

moreover, the "pardon is an admission of guilt" concept is likely mere dicta.
the notion has appeared in supreme court decisions, but nothing ever depended on it.

[CrispyQ]

11. Did you catch him on Ari Melber's show recently?

He clearly didn't know that by accepting a pardon he was admitting to guilt. Interesting that this is happening right after Ari schooled him.

[forgotmylogin]

13. Yeah, he totally blue-screened.

He couldn't continue and just jumped back to his program that he wasn't guilty.

[Dave Starsky]

2. Is this dildo still unaware that by accepting the dunce's pardon...

He admitted his own guilt?

Or is he just in denial over it?

[unblock]

6. most likely irrelevant.

he can still ask for his conviction to be vacated.

i happen to think he will fail, or at least would fail provided there's not a trumpy judge deciding the matter.

but his decision to accept and use a pardon will likely not factor into the decision.

[usaf-vet]

14. The "dunce's pardon" was a political stunt perpetrated by the dunce.

Trumps intention was to gain positive publicity for himself. He doesn't really care about the sheriff. The sheriff is yet another pawn in Trumps world.

It's been reported that another person he recently screwed got $130,000 in hush money.

What comes next is Trump saying Arpaio?... Arpaio? who is that I've never met him.

[Chrysanthemum]

19. I think he used the Arpaio pardon

...as a signal to his criminal associates who feel Mueller breathing down their necks. The pardon for Arpaio said, hold on, don't spill your guts to Mueller, I'll pardon you if you hang tough.

In other words, it was a signal that's part of his entire obstruction of justice scheme.

[Paladin]

5. Hold your breath until that conviction goes away, Arpaio. (nt)

[lark]

7. What, did anyone expect sanity from a repug?

Of course not! They are all total greedy racist hypocrites.

[MaryMagdaline]

8. Federal judges tend to stick together in contempt orders

I doubt he will find a judge to vacate the order. But what do I know? I thought no way almost 50% of America would vote trump.

[localroger]

9. While it is possible it's very unlikely

The usual reason an appellate court will set aside a judgement is that it finds something grossly wrong with the way the judgement occurred, such as a fraud on the court. None of the usual reasons apply to Arpaio's conviction, and what's more the particular thing Arpaio did, criminal contempt of court by repeatedly and openly defying a lawful order of the court, goes directly to the court system's own power to impose judgements. Good luck finding a appellate judge who will undermine the entire judiciary including himself by vacating an obvious and clear-cut case of contempt.

[Freethinker65]

10. Nope. He decided to take the pardon for his crimes

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. It thought that a judge had already ruled previously that the conviction cant be vacated. . . nt

[JohnnyRingo]

15. He should have refused the pardon.

After all, why would a self proclaimed innocent man be pardoned when he was "just doing his job"?

He could say he didn't understand the law, but he spent his life in law enforcement and now wants to move up to lawmaker. I really don't want to hear from this elderly felon again until he's mentioned on the obit page.

[struggle4progress]

16. Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?

No. Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President. Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction. In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. If you are seeking expungement of a federal offense, please contact the court of conviction ...
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-executive-clemency#Can the President pardon someone before they are indicted or convicted of a federal offense against the United States?

[struggle4progress]

17. The Presidents Pardon Power and Legal Effects

... In In re North, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) reviewed whether the recipient of a pardon, a former Central Intelligence Agency official, could claim attorneys' fees under the Ethics in Government Act. The act authorizes a court to award certain attorneys' fees incurred by the subject of an independent counsel investigation, but only if no indictment is brought against that person. The petitioner, citing Garland, argued that the full pardon he received from President George H.W. Bush entitled him to petition for attorneys' fees under the act, notwithstanding the return of an indictment against him during the investigation. The D.C. Circuit, noting that four Justices dissented in Garland, opined that the Court "implicitly rejected" the dictum in Garland when it decided Burdick, where it had "recognized that the acceptance of a pardon implies a confession of guilt." Applying Burdick, the D.C. Circuit concluded that "<b>ecause a pardon does not blot out guilt ..., one can conclude that a pardon does not blot out probable cause of guilt or expunge an indictment." Accordingly, the court held that a pardon did not nullify the indictment against the petitioner, thereby precluding his recovery of attorneys' fees under the act.

A similar result was reached in In re Abrams, where the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, sitting en banc, reviewed whether the recipient of a pardon, a former official with the Department of State, could be disciplined under the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit a lawyer from engaging in criminal acts of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." The petitioner argued that Garland prevented the court "from considering the wrongful conduct in assessing his moral character for the purpose of bar discipline." The court, following "the virtually unanimous weight of authority," held that though the pardon set aside the petitioner’s convictions and the consequences the law attached to his convictions, "it could not and did not require the court to close its eyes to the fact that Abrams did what he did." Accordingly, the court ordered the petitioner be publicly censured, as it determined that the commission of his pardoned offense could be used to assess his moral character ...

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44571.pdf

[jmowreader]

18. Tell ya what, Joe...

I'll swap you vacation of your contempt of court conviction for a guilty plea on 157 counts of 18 USC 242.

18 USC 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

157 people died in the Maricopa County jail system while Arpaio was sheriff-for-life there. I'll be nice and not even ask for the death sentence. All I want is one year of your life for every one of the 157 people who died in your gulag...served consecutively.

[sofa king]

20. "It is inconvenient for my career as a charlatan."