Federal judge refuses to erase Joe Arpaio's conviction despite Trump pardon

[MiniMe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/20/federal-judge-refuses-to-erase-joe-arpaios-conviction-despite-trump-pardon/?fbclid=IwAR0af2G0WIeRLZzHs3g8uX-7337u9vDVXZat-w50-8IDcSjR2sfRmDuAxiI&utm_term=.ff2a57743cd0

A federal judge on Thursday shot down former sheriff Joe Arpaio’s bid to sweep his criminal record clean.

Arpaio, the controversial former lawman in Arizona’s Maricopa County, was granted a pardon by President Trump on Aug. 25. He had been found guilty of criminal contempt of a federal court order after a five-day bench trial earlier this year and faced the possibility of up to six months in jail. After the pardon, the 85-year-old Arpaio petitioned the court to clear his record and prevent the ruling from being used in future litigation.

The case raised the novel question of how far a presidential pardon actually reaches.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton said the pardon only freed Arpaio from possible punishment. In a four-page order offering a check on the president’s executive power, Bolton wrote that a pardon could not erase the facts of the case.

snip, more at link

[dlk]

1. Awww -- That Darn Rule of Law Thing Gets in Former "Sheriff" Arpaio's Way

[malaise]

2. Get thee to the greatest page

Thank you Judge Bolton

[Takket]

3. good ruling

i can't believe arpaio even had the audacity to try that... okay, i can believe it. you cannot accept a pardon without essentially pleading guilty to a crime and has been pointed out here many times doing so means you must comply with investigations related to your crimes (this is why drumpf does not pardon people like Gates because his only concern is Gates being forced to testify against him).

you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. accepting a pardon doesn't mean we go back in time and make it so your crime never happened.

[unblock]

6. accepting a pardon does not mean pleading guilty to a crime.

this notion stems from confusion over a case (burdick v. united states) where the government tried to force an *unwanted* pardon on the accused, in order to compel testimony otherwise barred by the 5th amendment. in that case, the court ruled that a pardon could be refused.

it's a different scenario when the government is trying to force a pardon on someone vs. the usual case where someone accused or convicted of a crime would love to have a pardon. in the burdick case, the government was denying abusing procedures in order to get something they couldn't get through normal means. in the process, they denied burdick his right to assert his innocence.

but that concept doesn't apply generally to pardons. pardons may be given to people after dna evidence proves their innocence, for instance. it makes no sense that such people, exonerated of their crimes, would have to "effectively plead guilty" in order to accept a pardon for a miscarriage of justice.

a pardon does not, at least in all cases, amount to a guilty plea. i would argue that it does not amount to a guilty plea generally, except in specific cases where confessing and expressing remorse was part of the process for obtaining the pardon (which is a lot of them, to be sure).


i agree that once someone is pardoned, they no longer have a 5th amendment right to refuse to testify if answering would incriminate themselves, though this only applies to the specific crimes pardoned. for instance, a presidential pardon relating to one specific crime would still allow the recipient to assert a right to refuse to testify if the answer might incriminate themselves in a state crime or in a different federal crime.

[localroger]

38. Arpaio accepted the pardon

It was said at the time, and famously explained to Joe on live TV, that accepting the pardon is an admission of guilt, as there is nothing to pardon if you are not guilty of breaking the law. That is in fact what this proceeding was about; Joe is rather unhappy to be an admitted felon, considering how he treated so many other felons. But that's where we are today. Joe is an admitted felon because he accepted the pardon, and the pardon doesn't erase the fact that he's a felon; it just absolves him of punishment.

[unblock]

41. He can't say he wasn't convicted. But he can certainly say he was always innocent.

Donnie didn't ask him to admit guilt or to express remorse. In fact, he arguably gave him the pardon precisely because he didn't.

He can't get the facts erased from his record. Evidence was presented, and he was convicted. He can't erase that.

But, as much as any criminal can, he can insist he's innocent until the day he dies. Accepting a pardon simply does not mean you admit the crime, it only means you accept it as a way out of punishment.

[Takket]

40. yes.. .the last paragraph of your post is what i was getting at.....

that is why i said "essentially" which does not mean "literally". The pardoned person can't go around proclaiming their innocence anymore for the offenses pardoned (IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED). A pardon just means you aren't punished anymore, not that you never did anything wrong. and this is why drumpf is not going to give anyone free reign to talk to Mueller by pardoning for offenses related to conspiring with Russians to defraud the USA (a fact Mueller is rendering moot anyway by compiling enough evidence to make drumpf's co-conspirators flip).

If you are pardoned for something you honestly didn't do, then c'est la vie, the government just isn't getting info out of you if they question you.

[former9thward]

18. None of that is true.

1) No, you don't have to plead guilty to a crime to receive a pardon -- "essentially" or otherwise.

2) No, you don't have to comply with investigations related to your crimes.

I have no idea where you are getting this from and none of this was in Judge Bolton's ruling.

[hotrod0808]

22. Agreed

Nixon was pardoned for ANY crimes he committed as President without Nixon having so much as a pre-trial hearing.

[Perseus]

30. My understanding is that if you are pardoned

Its because you are guilty of the crime. You can't be pardoned from nothing, you are guilty and so you need to be pardoned or go to jail.

"While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of that conviction."


Not sure if this is what the conversation is about...

[Locutusofborg]

33. Ford's pardon of Nixon came without Nixon ever being charged with a crime

"Finally, I feel that Richard Nixon and his loved ones have suffered enough and will continue to suffer, no matter what I do, no matter what we, as a great and good nation, can do together to make his goal of peace come true.

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth."
President Gerald R. Ford - September 8, 1974
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/ford.htm

[former9thward]

35. Both Ford and Carter pardoned thousands of draft evaders from Vietnam.

Most of them had never been charged with anything.

[unblock]

44. This is false. A pardon can be used to correct an incorrect guilty verdict, e.g., dna evidence.

It can also be used to stop a malicious prosecution.

Or it can be used to spare the country of a damaging trial (the argument in ford's pardon of Nixon. I think that was a horrible mistake, but that was the reason given.)

Nixon didn't admit guilt and certainly someone innocently sent to prison and later exonerated by dna evidence not available at trial and then pardoned isn't admiting guilt when they take it in order to get out of prison. It makes absolutely no sense to insist that a demonstrably innocent person is confessing to a crime they didn't commit in order to get out of a miscarriage of justice.

[asiliveandbreathe]

4. What a legacy this disgusting man will carry to his grave...85 years old -

Green bologna, pink underwear, tent city, abuse of power - papers please, was anything but please....

A Pardon could NOT erase the FACTS of the case......4 page check on prez executive power...MUSIC TO MY EARS!!!!!

Appeal ruling?? Who knows - what we do know, they just don't guit..time will tell...

[lunatica]

5. You'ld think the fact he calls himself Sheriff would

mean he believes in the rule of law.

[cojoel]

46. 1970s humor

The fact you are a sheriff is not germane to the situation.

The goddamn Germans ain't got nothing to do with it.

[PeeJ52]

7. Gee...

I wonder if this was a Clinton judge, a Bush judge, an Obama judge, a tRump judge, or just an extraordinary dedicated judge doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them?

[MiniMe]

9. Clinton appointed her

[DFW]

8. Well, how about that? Good for Judge Bolton

Last edited Sun Nov 25, 2018, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact that the Donald pardoned Arpaio doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. It only means that we have a president who thinks that people committing crimes that he approves of should get off easier than people who commit crimes he doesn't care about.

[beachbum bob]

10. A pardon does not erase the underlying crime and conviction...

[erronis]

11. Sort of a strange wish, but I hope Arpaio has a long life ahead of him.

Carrying that baggage along.

Not sure I wish the same on the oranganus who granted the pardon, however.

[ProudLib72]

12. I call for this to be chiseled onto his tombstone

Not that he was a sheriff or a husband or anything else. Just that he committed crimes, was pardoned by the worst human in history, but that his crimes could not be erased. There could even be a picture of the tent prison.

[former9thward]

20. What baggage?

He was convicted of a misdemeanor. If you call that baggage I guess there are millions of Americans with that "baggage". How does it affect him one bit?

[erronis]

21. Yes - I probably have some of that too. But why does he want to clear his?

[former9thward]

27. No good reason.

I think he is just screwing with the judge.

[SunSeeker]

29. Arpaio's trying shield himself from civil latigation arising from the same facts.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11471605

[SunSeeker]

28. Per the article, the ruling may be used against him in future litigation.

The conviction can be used for res judicata/collateral estoppel purposes in civil litigation against Arpaio.

As Judge Bolton concluded, Arpaio can't "erase the facts." And those are some ugly facts.

[former9thward]

34. Except there is no civil litigation.

Arpaio act's are covered by Maricopa County. He can't be touched personally. All such suits would have been filed long ago. Maricopa County settled those suits years ago.

[SunSeeker]

36. Wrong. There definitely is civil litigation.

For example, this conviction can be used against Arpaio in the libel action Arpaio himself filed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-sues-new-york-times-for-libel/

[former9thward]

43. There is no civil litigation against Arpaio.

The lawsuit against the Times is a stunt to screw with an opponent. It goes nowhere legally. The pardon has nothing to do with.

[SunSeeker]

47. Wrong again.

Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio has been ongoing since 2008. Post judgment monitoring resulted in about $24 million funneled to former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's case-related expenses this year alone, adding to the $46 million incurred since 2008. Costs will continue to mount for the foreseeable future. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/17/taxpayer-tab-up-70-m-joe-arpaio-racial-profiling-case/576878001/
See also: https://www.acluaz.org/en/cases/ortega-melendres-v-penzone

Of course Arpaio's libel action is bullshit. So much so that it could result in a malicious prosecution claim by the columnist against Arpaio. The contempt facts will aid in proof against Arpaio. And that is not the only storm cloud on the horizon.

That is why the article says Arpaio wanted the contempt ruling completely removed from the books: "After the pardon, the 85-year-old Arpaio petitioned the court to clear his record and prevent the ruling from being used in future litigation." Future litigation like this: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senators-son-to-seek-new-civil-trial-against-joe-arpaio

So this ruling does indeed hurt Arpaio, despite your odd protestations to the contrary.

[former9thward]

58. Typically you ignore the fact he is not liable for anything.

Maricopa County is. And typically you are wrong about the litigation. The case you referred to was settled long ago. That is what is meant by "post judgment". The case was tried long ago.

[SunSeeker]

59. The case is not dismissed. The court maintains jurisdiction for monitoring.

It is you who ignored that Arpaio has a pending civil case. It is you who ignored my links reqarding potential litigation exposure for Arpaio.

[former9thward]

60. He has no pending civil case.

You are just making it up because you were called on it. The court provided a remedy to settle the case so of course it monitors the remedy. Arpaio has nothing to do with it. The only way the case could get opened again would be if the post-Arpaio administration in the Sheriff's office violated the remedy.

[SunSeeker]

61. You already admitted Arpaio has a pending civil case (the defamation case).

You acknowledged it after you were called out for falsely asserting to the contrary.

Now you want to quibble over whether Melendres is pending civil litigation. Well, the Arizona ACLU says the case is is ongoing. https://www.acluaz.org/en/cases/ortega-melendres-v-penzone

If you are at all familiar with what is entailed in court-appointed monitoring of a post trial order, you would not be making this silly argument. It is during this post trial monitoring and related discovery and court proceedings IN THAT CASE that resulted in the contempt order from which Arpaio got a pardon from Trump.

[3Hotdogs]

54. I guess it affected him some itty, bitty, bit. Or else he wouldn'ta spent lawyer money and filing

fee to get it expunged.

[former9thward]

57. He has millions in his political fund.

It does not cost him a penny personally to file or do anything else.

[JohnnyRingo]

13. Maybe a pardon isn't the same as expunging the charges.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say that figures.

He can still pursue the latter, but Trump can't deliver it. He'll have to go through the process the same as everyone else. I think he knows that already.

[Kaleva]

14. So posthumous pardons aren't even symbolically significant.

If all it does is prevent the deceased from receiving any possible future punishment.

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. I thought about that.

But I do think they are still symbolically powerful even if they don't erase the facts of the case.

A pardon is different from overturning a conviction. This clarifies that.

But I don't think it detracts from pardons meant to send a message. Let each stand on it's own interpretation. Pardoning an Arpaio v Peltier for example, would never be seen as morally equivalent. In fact, the contrast would be stark indeed. And quite revealing really.

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. Excellent ruling!

[iluvtennis]

19. +1 woohoo

[calimary]

24. +2 woohoo, too!

[blue-wave]

23. Thank You Judge!!

[SunSeeker]

25. K & R

[AZ8theist]

26. Arpaio.

WHAT.

A.

FUCKING.

ANTI.

AMERICAN.

DOUCHEBAG.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!! expire already...

[Scurrilous]

31. K&R

[dsharp88]

32. One must admit guilt to accept a pardon. Period.

That's always been the rule. At least in this instance, Republicans are supposed to obey rules and laws, too. It is such a rare occurrence that it is actually refreshing to see it happen.

[tammywammy]

37. No, that's untrue.

MYTH NO. 4: Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.

In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon's guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump's pardon.

But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump's rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d'Aquino (World War II's "Tokyo Rose&quot after "60 Minutes" revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of "the criminalization of policy differences." If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-pardons-presidential-trump-nixon-ford-kardashian-0608-story.html

[CanadianGuy2]

42. First time poster

Hi,

First time poster. Accepting a pardon does not admit guilt, but I'm no attorney. A pardon is not also not an explusion. And I do love the language the judge used in the ruling, especially that a pardon does not change the facts in a conviction.

Arpaio remains a piece of shit (if I can use that language here.)

[gopiscrap]

51. welcome to DU!

[Haggis for Breakfast]

52. Excuse me, but pardons are NOT granted to the innocent.

Here in the US, they are only extended to the guilty. In accepting an executive pardon, guilt has already been established, irrespective of whether or not the individual accepts the verdict.

Agreed, Arpaio is a piece of shit, and yes, you can say that here.

Welcome

[tritsofme]

53. The imposition of a guilty verdict is not a prerequisite for a pardon.

Nixon for instance, was never charged with a crime.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

56. Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row

Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row

Last exoneration November 5, 2018 (#164)

For Inclusion on DPIC's Innocence List:

Defendants must have been convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently either-

a. Been acquitted of all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row, or

b. Had all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row dismissed by the prosecution or the courts, or

c. Been granted a complete pardon based on evidence of innocence.

[no_hypocrisy]

39. Expungement of a conviction is completely different from a Pardon.

[ashling]

45. This is dated October 2017

...

[MiniMe]

50. So it is, I didn't even notice that. But I hadn't heard about previously

At least not that I remember. Arpaio is still a jerk

[ashling]

55. I thought this sounded familiar so I checked the date

Not dissing, but I just wanted to mention that.

And this is worth repeating.

Also, You are 100% correct. Arpaio is a jerk.

[ck4829]

48. K&R

[cstanleytech]

49. Judge made the right call for the right reasons.