Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE President Donald Trump defended his decision to pardon Joe Arpaio, calling the former Arizona sheriff a "patriot" who loves his country. (Aug. 28) AP
Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio speaks to The Arizona Republic about his pardon from President Donald Trump. (Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic)
PHOENIX — U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before Arpaio’s recent presidential pardon.
However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio's request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn't grant Arpaio's request.
Arpaio's attorneys asked Bolton on Monday to vacate Arpaio's conviction in light of President Trump's Friday pardon.
Bolton has scheduled oral arguments on the matter for Oct. 4, the day before Arpaio was supposed to be sentenced.
There is case law that says a pardon implies an admission of guilt, and that will have to be argued in open court.
More: Trump defends Arpaio pardon; lists other infamous uses of the power
More: President Trump pardons former Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Mark Goldman, one of Arpaio's attorneys, said, "We look forward to the hearing, and hope that the court will make the appropriate ruling. The verdict should have been set aside by the court already and prior to the pardon for the reason that it was never delivered to Sheriff Arpaio in open court, but instead sent to his attorneys via email, thus violating his constitutional rights to a public trial and to participate in his trial."
Goldman told The Arizona Republic Arpaio will appeal if the judge does not vacate all decisions in the case.
“We don’t know if the court will,” he said. "And if they don’t, we’ll be appealing, but hopefully this will just put this to rest.”
Goldman said Arpaio spent the weekend fielding calls from reporters and supporters, and watching how news of his pardon was playing out on local and national news, including the Sunday morning political shows. Goldman said several media outlets have inaccurately reported that Arpaio was convicted of racially profiling Latinos during his immigration operations.
The underlying claims were in a civil lawsuit pursued by the American Civil Liberties Union, alleging racial profiling. Arpaio and his office lost. The allegation of criminal contempt came from a judge, not the U.S. Department of Justice, though the judge asked Justice to prosecute it.
“He was extremely distressed with the mischaracterization of the conviction,” Goldman said. “It was extremely hurtful and upsetting to him that it was being reported that he was convicted of racial profiling."
“The sheriff is not a racist and has never been a racist, and any type of such accusation was upsetting and extremely distressing to him,” Goldman said.
But judging from letters to the editor, social-media posts and the press releases of activist groups, no one has changed sides in their support or opposition to the controversial former sheriff because of the pardon. If anything, it has only raised the volume of their voices.
"No matter how he tries to cover up the words, racial profiling was the underlying cause in both the civil and criminal charges," said Mary Rose Wilcox, a Latino-rights activist and former longtime county supervisor.
Kim Nalder, professor of political science at California State University-Sacramento, said misreporting by the media of Arpaio's conviction threatens to deepen mistrust of the media.
"It's key that the details be very particular," she said. "In this case, there may be a blurring of the lines between 'contempt of court' and 'convicted for racist conduct.' "
Nalder said the press must be accurate or else "people who are already dismissive of the coverage ... could consider the media 'fake news,' " a popular Trump label of the media.
Wilcox was targeted in an investigation by Arpaio and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, though criminal charges against her were thrown out in court as politically motivated. The county paid her $975,000 in a resultant civil suit she filed.
In the years they served together at the county, Wilcox told The Republic, she didn't think of Arpaio as racist until he linked with Thomas, who championed state enforcement against illegal immigration.
"He jumped on the bandwagon and became the biggest racist in America because of the publicity he sought," she said. "Whether he's a racist at heart or not, nobody would ever know from the policies. They are racist to the core."
More: Analysis: Trump's bold Joe Arpaio pardon breaks with presidential tradition
More: Ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio found guilty of criminal contempt of court
During a press conference Monday, Trump spoke in defense of the pardon, telling reporters that Arpaio was treated "unbelievably unfairly."
"He's done a great job for the people of Arizona, he's very strong on borders, very strong on illegal immigration, he is loved in Arizona," Trump said. "I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly when they came down with their big decision to go get him, right before the election voting started."
In fact, the order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt did not come from Barack Obama's administration, as is frequently reported. The racial profiling lawsuit was brought in civil court by the American Civil Liberties Union. The judge trying that case not only found that Arpaio's policies constituted racial profiling, he also found Arpaio to be in civil contempt of court and referred him to another judge for the criminal contempt.
That judge, Susan Bolton, first asked the U.S. Attorney in Arizona to try the case. When that office declined, she asked the Department of Justice to take it.
Follow Michael Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez on Twitter: @yvonnewingett and and @michaelbkiefer
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2wR3oWM
Egorse on August 30th, 2017 at 22:44 UTC »
Here is a quote from his lawyers from the WP
He did have that opportunity, he gave that up when he accepted the pardon. No one forced him to do that.
redguitar2009 on August 30th, 2017 at 21:36 UTC »
Correct me if I am wrong but a president can wipe away a sentence, but not the trial process or the conviction part. He can't just walk in and say "everyone stop what you are doing".
iushciuweiush on August 30th, 2017 at 18:38 UTC »
I can already tell there is going to be a lot of misinformation presented here. A pardon does not erase a conviction. It only forgives the crime, thereby erasing any sentencing or other punishments associated with the conviction. The judge has canceled the sentencing hearing for this exact reason.
So what is happening here? Well, Joe Arapaio requested his conviction be dropped (vacated) due to the presidential pardon issued. This is purely at the judges discretion since a pardon doesn't automatically do this. The judge has three choices: approve, deny, or wait until both sides of the argument are presented before making a final decision. She chose the last one.