Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt
Megan Cassidy, The Republic | azcentral.com
Published 11:25 a.m. MT July 31, 2017
Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s own words were the linchpin in the case against him, his quotes cited more than 20 times in a federal judge's ruling that found him guilty of criminal contempt of court. In a verdict filed Monday morning, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said evidence demonstrated Arpaio’s “flagrant disregard” for another federal judge’s order that halted his signature immigration round-ups. The sentencing phase will begin Oct. 5. Arpaio, 85, faces up to six months in confinement, a sentence equivalent to that of a misdemeanor. In what has become customary in judgments against Arpaio, Bolton liberally inserted the lawman’s public remarks, mostly issued through news releases and media clips, to support her opinion. “Credible testimony shows that the Defendant knew of the order and what the order meant in regards to the MCSO’s policy of detaining persons who did not have state charges for turnover to ICE for civil immigration violations,” the ruling read. “Despite this knowledge, (the) Defendant broadcast to the world and to his subordinates that he would and they should continue ‘what he had always been doing.’” The verdict is a rejection of Arpaio’s defense: That the order was unclear and that, although mistakes had been made, the violations were unintended. Willful intent is required to prove criminal contempt rather than civil contempt. Reached for comment on Monday, Arpaio deferred most questions to his attorneys but confirmed that he was surprised by the outcome. “We presented a great case,” he said. Arpaio's attorneys issued a statement Monday saying he will appeal the ruling and will continue to press for a jury trial. The statement went on to echo the argument Arpaio’s attorneys repeatedly turned to in court — that U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow’s order was too ambiguous to be understood and, therefore, followed. “Joe Arpaio is in this for the long haul,” the statement concluded. “And he will continue to fight to vindicate himself, to prove his innocence, and to protect the public.” Arpaio attorney Jack Wilenchik said the team will be arguing the jury issue “amongst many other things.” “The verdict’s completely contrary to the evidence,” he said. “Just because another judge in the same court says that it is (that the order was clear) does not mean that it is as a matter of law.” A spokesman for the Department of Justice declined a request for comment. Monday's decision caps the latest chapter in a decadelong racial-profiling case that began after allegations that Arpaio’s deputies were targeting Latinos during their immigration-enforcement operations. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, Arpaio’s office was known as the “tip of the spear” that would enforce the state’s hard-line immigration efforts. Its crackdowns included “pretextual” traffic stops to net those in the country illegally and patrol sweeps that zeroed in on Hispanic neighborhoods. Many of those taken into custody were not accused of violating a state crime but only of living in the country illegally. Once they were detained, deputies would turn over the individuals to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement or Border Patrol officials, who would initiate deportation proceedings. The intent was to essentially act as another arm of the federal government, which has exclusive power to enforce civil-immigration violations. Snow presided over the civil case, ruling in 2013 Arpaio’s office had racially profiled. At the time, the ruling seemed to signal the end of a costly county battle with civil-rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union. But the case continued to expand as the Sheriff's Office struggled to implement mandated reforms, and as allegations of the office violating Snow’s orders began to cement. In 2015, Snow ordered a civil trial of sorts to determine whether Arpaio’s office had violated three separate orders. Two centered on allegations that the department had failed to turn over evidence in case, and the third on whether Arpaio had violated a 2011 preliminary injunction that barred deputies from detaining migrants not suspected of a crime. Last year, Snow found Arpaio and three aides guilty of civil contempt. He then referred Arpaio, two aides and a former attorney for criminal contempt charges, though federal prosecutors opted to only pursue Arpaio, and to charge him only on the preliminary injunction violation. The proceedings lasted four days in June, and closing arguments were heard July 6. It was Arpaio’s first major court appearance since his decisive defeat to Paul Penzone in November’s election. During the trial, prosecutors from the Justice Department’s Public Integrity section showed how Arpaio’s deputies illegally detained 171 individuals after Snow’s December 2011 injunction. They showcased news releases, media clips and old depositions to try to demonstrate Arpaio was more interested in burnishing his political reputation than following a judge’s orders. Arpaio’s hard-line immigration platform was popular with conservatives throughout the country, and he faced re-election in 2012. In the clips and news releases, Arpaio is quoted — after the injunction — as saying that he will continue to enforce state and federal immigration law. In one particularly potent clip, Arpaios is seen talking to an inmate at his jails, who states that Arpaio is outranked by federal law. “No,” Arpaio said. “Nobody is higher than me. I am the elected sheriff by the people. I don’t serve any governor or the president.” Federal trial attorney John Keller said Arpaio’s words show that he was willfully defiant of Snow’s order. “He didn’t care about the federal court injunction,” Keller said. “That wasn’t going to stop him from running his office the way he saw fit.” The prosecutors’ strategy seemed to track well with Bolton, who also used Arpaio’s quotes liberally throughout her ruling. She cited various televised interviews with Arpaio, one in which he bragged he would “never give in to control by the federal government.” Defense: Judge's original order was unclearArpaio’s defense attorneys instead argued that Snow’s order left room for interpretation. For an individual to be found in criminal contempt, the judge’s order must be “clear and definite.” Defense attorney Dennis Wilenchik pointed out how numerous people in the Sheriff's Office seemed confused about the order. “The only one who understood what Judge Snow meant was Judge Snow himself,” he said. Another key defense strategy involved shifting blame to Tim Casey, Arpaio’s former defense attorney. Dennis Wilenchik said Casey neglected to follow up on training scenarios that would have clarified the order. Casey had testified earlier that he had explained the order several times, and that Arpaio had assured him the office already wasn’t doing the things the order prohibited. Ultimately, Dennis Wilenchik had said, there was “not one shred of evidence” that Arpaio had intentionally defied the judge. Bolton dismissed the defense’s attempt to muddy the water. She found that Snow’s order was, in fact, “clear and definite” and that “this conclusion does not require looking beyond the plain words of the order.” She added that delegating the order to Arpaio’s subordinates was no excuse for the violation. “Willful ignorance of a court order which a person has knowledge of and a duty to fulfill does not excuse non-compliance therewith,” she said. (Story continues http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/07/31/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-found-guilty-criminal-contempt-court/486278001/
|