Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:55 PM
Just Asking Questions Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,900
Why don't they ever call me for jury duty for these cases?

Oh well, I'd never survive voir dire anyway.
  #3  
Old 06-26-2017, 08:44 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,348
Prolly the most significant thing in today's proceedings came from Mr. Arpaio's former attorney:
Quote:
A lawyer who once represented former Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a racial profiling case has testified that he had several meetings with Arpaio to discuss a court order that barred traffic patrols targeting immigrants.

Attorney Tim Casey was forced to testify Monday at Arpaio's trial on a criminal contempt-of-court charge for prolonging the patrols after a judge ordered them stopped.

The questioning got bogged down in objections over whether attorney-client privilege barred Casey from providing details of his conversations with Arpaio.

Casey says he told Arpaio that his officers either had to arrest immigrants on state charges or release them.

Prosecutors say Arpaio turned the detainees over to federal authorities in violation of the judge's order.
Cite.
  #4  
Old 06-26-2017, 08:48 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,595
"Arpaio's lawyer vigorously disputed that a person with nearly 60 years in law enforcement would violate a court order on purpose."

Lol. Of course he would and he did.
  #5  
Old 06-27-2017, 01:35 AM
friedo friedo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 23,402
Fuck that guy.
  #6  
Old 06-27-2017, 02:13 AM
cochrane cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 18,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I guess 26 June is just "Scumbags On Trial Day" or something. Is it like this every year and I just never noticed?He did so much harm to so many people, I hope to see pictures of him in the same pink clothes he made prisoners wear; fuck leniency due to his age.
But only six months! It needs to be 100 times as long.
  #7  
Old 06-27-2017, 07:41 AM
campp campp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 2,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
He did so much harm to so many people, I hope to see pictures of him in the same pink clothes he made prisoners wear; fuck leniency due to his age.
Fortunately, his successor has dropped all the silly stuff like pink underwear. Tent City was finally shut down and obsoleted (plenty of room in the existing brick and mortar facilities).

One huge expense going forward for the county is to remove all the Joe Arpaio signage all over the place. Extreme narcissism, you know.
  #8  
Old 06-27-2017, 08:01 AM
Grrr! Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,510
He won't be getting shit. And even if he does, the great Orange on will pardon the twit.
  #9  
Old 06-27-2017, 08:13 AM
Merneith Merneith is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I guess 26 June is just "Scumbags On Trial Day" or something.
My favorite holiday! I got to dig out my horsehair wig!
  #10  
Old 06-27-2017, 10:24 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
Why don't they ever call me for jury duty for these cases?

Oh well, I'd never survive voir dire anyway.
Me either.

Defense Attorney: Your honor, I would like to dismiss venireman #6. He has been looking stink-eye at the defendant since he walked into the courtroom.

Judge: Stink-eye? That's more murderous intent. Granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
"Arpaio's lawyer vigorously disputed that a person with nearly 60 years in law enforcement would violate a court order on purpose."

Lol. Of course he would and he did.
This is called grasping at straws. And it flies in the face of all reason, what with the guy bragging for a generation that he's the bestest sheriff evar.

Last edited by DesertDog; 06-27-2017 at 10:25 AM.
  #11  
Old 06-27-2017, 02:23 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I hope to see pictures of him in the same pink clothes he made prisoners wear; fuck leniency due to his age.
Put him in pink panties, give him the same bread and water (or whatever it was) he gave to others, and stick him in a tent in the summer Arizona sun. If he squawks, beat the shit out of him, as he and his goons have been accused of doing to others.

If he can do hard labor, even better. His age is no fucking excuse. NO leniency for ANY reason.

He deserves to get everything he did to other people (many of whom had been charged but not yet convicted of anything, or were just "too Mexican").
  #12  
Old 06-27-2017, 02:41 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
Put him in pink panties, give him the same bread and water (or whatever it was) he gave to others, and stick him in a tent in the summer Arizona sun. If he squawks, beat the shit out of him, as he and his goons have been accused of doing to others.
I'm a firm believer in judging people according to their own standards, so I very strongly agree with this sentiment. Not necessarily the beating part, because I don't support that, but the uniform, the food, the tents, the sunshine, oh hell yes.
  #13  
Old 06-27-2017, 03:14 PM
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 10,597
He clearly deserves the death penalty.
  #14  
Old 06-27-2017, 07:31 PM
MacCat MacCat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
He clearly deserves the death penalty.
The planet will certainly be a better place when he's no longer breathing, but since I'm anti death penalty, life without parole works for this POS.
  #15  
Old 06-27-2017, 08:13 PM
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 17,533
How do they know in advance the trial will last eight days?
  #16  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:06 AM
DummyGladHands DummyGladHands is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
Put him in pink panties, give him the same bread and water (or whatever it was) he gave to others, and stick him in a tent in the summer Arizona sun. If he squawks, beat the shit out of him, as he and his goons have been accused of doing to others.

If he can do hard labor, even better. His age is no fucking excuse. NO leniency for ANY reason.

He deserves to get everything he did to other people (many of whom had been charged but not yet convicted of anything, or were just "too Mexican").
Green bologna. Out of date lunch meat IOW
  #17  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:38 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,901
I do think that just because of his senility (and that IMHO is yet another reason why I do not respect many of the ones that were voting for that yahoo) Arpaio will not go to jail.

Still, I do think it will be good to get on the record that what he did was at least grossly unjust at best or criminal at worst.

To this day I wonder why the so called liberal media did not force Trump and minions to separate from "Mr. Racial profiler" and abuser of power here. Just as they did with Obama and the very controversial people that Obama just met socially and in passing (with no evidence that Obama supported the controversial views they had).

Obama even had to leave his church and condemn one of the preachers there because one preacher had funny ideas about the causes of the World Trade Center attack.

By the time Trump willfully joined Arpaio to the hip in the campaign trail, Arpaio already had his minions arrest and harass local editors of the New Times weekly that were his critics with false accusations. Used racial profiling for his arrests, mismanaged prisons to the point to risk the lives of prisoners with bad food and horrid conditions in his jails (there were also people that did die unnecessarily thanks to those bad conditions). Defied the courts and even attempted to disrupt justice by investigating the wife of the judge in his case.

The media really had one job, to constantly bug Trump and minions about why Trump was in bed with abusers of power like Joe Arpaio. The refusal of not officially coming against Arpaio or to not condemn his abuses should had been a very important issue in the election. To press the point about the kind of people Trump was getting closer. It would had been a huuge big Trump size sign about what Trump was very likely to do, and at a larger scale, with America.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-28-2017 at 10:40 AM.
  #18  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:45 AM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I do think that just because of his senility (and that IMHO is yet another reason why I do not respect many of the ones that were voting for that yahoo) Arpaio will not go to jail.
I must have missed the announcement that Arpaio was diagnosed as senile. Do you have a cite?
  #19  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:48 AM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
He clearly deserves the death penalty.
I disagree. It doesn't matter whether he did racial profiling or violated a court order, because illegal aliens are illegals and they shouldn't be here. Illegal aliens are un-American and they're destroying America just by being here illegally. Arpaio should be given a medal and a knighthood and a giant check for a billion dollars and a kiss on both cheeks from Ivanka and Melania Trump, not a trial which is just sore loser libtard snowflake FAKE NEWS anyway.

Last edited by Vinyl Turnip; 06-28-2017 at 10:48 AM.
  #20  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:53 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I must have missed the announcement that Arpaio was diagnosed as senile. Do you have a cite?
I was going for the dictionary definition:

Quote:
se·nile
ˈsēˌnīl,ˈsenīl/
adjective
adjective: senile
1.
(of a person) having or showing the weaknesses or diseases of old age, especially a loss of mental faculties.
And the Phoenix New Times weekly gave that option to Arpaio because of how he testified years ago, (BTW right now Arpaio is 85)

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...of-s-t-6664990
Quote:
Joe Arpaio During Andrew Thomas Hearing: Senile, Or Full of S**t?
Quote:
Obviously, it seems odd that Arpaio, the guy running the show at the MCSO for nearly 20 years, had no clue what his top-deputy Hendershott was up to. However, his claim that he doesn't remember anything could make sense -- at 79, his memory seems to be slipping a bit. See exhibit A here.

We want to know what you think, though: is Arpaio senile, a liar, or just so full of shit he doesn't even know when he's lying and when he's telling the truth.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-28-2017 at 10:53 AM.
  #21  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:59 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,901
So, he could either be a stinky liar and a willful abuser of power, or he was/is losing his memory and an incompetent. Regardless how one chooses it, it really demonstrated a lot of blindness by the people that voted for the likes of him for so many years.
  #22  
Old 06-28-2017, 11:28 AM
Kimballkid Kimballkid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatopescado View Post
How do they know in advance the trial will last eight days?
Experience with this type of trial. They usually schedule trials for a certain amount of time and they are usually pretty accurate.
  #23  
Old 06-28-2017, 12:39 PM
DesertDog DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
So, he could either be a stinky liar and a willful abuser of power, or he was/is losing his memory and an incompetent. Regardless how one chooses it, it really demonstrated a lot of blindness by the people that voted for the likes of him for so many years.
Exactly. He was all, "I'm in charge and what I say goes!" until a few years ago when it looked like there could be consequences for those actions -- jail time and/or fines paid out of his pocket instead of the taxpayers'. Then the tune changed to "It was my subordinates who did that... I didn't understand the order... You'll have to ask my lieutenant... "

I pointed out in the election four years ago (the last one he won) that either he wasn't really the sheriff after all or was lying through his teeth; either way, he no longer deserved the job. His supporters disagreed.
  #24  
Old 06-28-2017, 12:52 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
So, he could either be a stinky liar and a willful abuser of power, or he was/is losing his memory and an incompetent. Regardless how one chooses it, it really demonstrated a lot of blindness by the people that voted for the likes of him for so many years.
Thanks for the explanation. I prefer to go with "a stinky liar and a willful abuser of power" anyway, so that there's no question that he was, in fact, responsible for his actions and the actions of those he directed.
  #25  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:18 AM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,348
Today was excellent! It's difficult to believe this isn't a movie script or a comedy sketch. Check this out:
Quote:
Arpaio’s PR adviser, a woman who spent nearly a quarter of a century defending/explaining/touting Joe Arpaio, is at it once again.

On Tuesday, 12 News’ Brahm Resnik caught up with Lisa Allen outside the federal courthouse, wherein she explained that Arpaio didn’t intentionally ignore a highly publicized federal judge’s 2011 order to stop enforcing federal immigration law.

Allen told Resnik that Arpaio didn't have a clue about the order and neither did any of his top deputies, the people who were running the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa Allen
I don't think he knew (about the order). I don't think anybody knew. What I say, and it's not particularly flattering, we didn't ignore the thing, we didn't do any of that. If we were guilty of anything, it was maybe that we were a little lazy and a little incompetent.
Yep... you read that right... that's the new defensive tactic.

The rest of the article is droll ridicule:
Quote:
For 17 months, sheriff’s officials had no idea that a federal judge had barred them from detaining immigrants based solely on suspicions they were here illegally?

Not a single one read the front-page Republic story the day after Judge Murray Snow issued his injunction in December 2011?

The one entitled: “Judge curbs MCSO tactics”

The one that began: “A federal judge issued a ruling Friday that will curtail the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's ability to target illegal immigrants …”
Quote:
Nobody in the sheriff's office was curious enough to read alllll the way to the fourth paragraph, which said: “The judge's ruling also bars all sheriff's officers from arresting any person ‘only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States.’ "
What a world we live in.

ETA: Martin Shkreli is trying more-or-less the same tactic!

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 06-29-2017 at 05:22 AM.
  #26  
Old 06-29-2017, 09:21 AM
BubbaDog BubbaDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: KC MO or there abouts
Posts: 5,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
He clearly deserves the death penalty.
Score two for the whoosh
  #27  
Old 07-06-2017, 12:58 PM
DesertDog DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,283
Now he's asking SCOTUS to step in. Typical conservative move: Condemning "activist judges" unless they're the only thing standing between him and a conviction. Closing arguments today. Stand by for more twisting and turning.
  #28  
Old 07-06-2017, 04:21 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Now he's asking SCOTUS to step in. Typical conservative move: Condemning "activist judges" unless they're the only thing standing between him and a conviction. Closing arguments today. Stand by for more twisting and turning.
No! No activist librul judges for him! No legislating from the bench for him!

NO SOUP FOR YOU!
  #29  
Old 07-07-2017, 08:11 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,283
Well, the closing arguments are about as expected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZCentral
[Judge] Bolton asked federal prosecutor John Keller to whom the “clear and definite” portion applied.

“So it had to be clear and definite to a person in the position of the defendant, or is it clear and definite as explained by other people in his office?” she said. “Or does it have to, on its face, be clear and definite, without anyone else explaining it?”

Keller said it was the defendant’s responsibility to understand the order.

“When you’re under a court injunction, you don’t get to say, ‘Well, um, no one explained it to me sufficiently,’ ” he said, before citing case law. “The defendant may not avoid criminal contempt by ‘twisted interpretations’ or ‘tortured construction’ of the provisions of the order.”
Article here. The judge has a couple weeks to decide.
  #30  
Old 07-07-2017, 01:05 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Well, the closing arguments are about as expected.

Article here. The judge has a couple weeks to decide.
It's simple. If the judge says "stop doing that" then you stop doing it. This fucker was just too damn arrogant to deal with it properly.

I hope they throw the damn book at him. Make an example.
  #31  
Old 07-07-2017, 01:21 PM
Ike Witt Ike Witt is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 13,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
I hope they throw the damn book at him. Make an example.
I thought the charge was a misdemeanor, how much book can be thrown at him?
  #32  
Old 07-07-2017, 04:14 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Witt View Post
I thought the charge was a misdemeanor, how much book can be thrown at him?
Jail time. No "mercy" for being a (corrupt) "lawman", no "mercy" for pretending to be senile or pretending to not know/remember. No tiny fine to pay. No "community service" or "time off" for any reason.

Jail time.

You can lock someone up for contempt, can't you?
  #33  
Old 07-07-2017, 05:24 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
He did so much harm to so many people, I hope to see pictures of him in the same pink clothes he made prisoners wear; fuck leniency due to his age.
I'm hardly an Arpaio fan, but I hope they treat him the same way that they treat any other prisoner once he's convicted. Anything more - poetic or not - is just revenge fantasy.
  #34  
Old 07-07-2017, 06:49 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
Jail time. No "mercy" for being a (corrupt) "lawman", no "mercy" for pretending to be senile or pretending to not know/remember. No tiny fine to pay. No "community service" or "time off" for any reason.

Jail time.

You can lock someone up for contempt, can't you?
Yes. Although it's you might be thinking of a different kind of situation. A contemnor may be jailed in order to compel him to end his contumacious conduct. ("Testify, or you'll go to jail until you do.") That is civil contempt, punished in summary fashion, and it's said that the contemnor holds the key to his own cell: at any time he wishes, he may comply with the court's command and purge himself of the contempt.

In this case, Arapio is charged with criminal contempt in violation of 18 USC § 401 et seq, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully disobey a lawful order of a court of the United States. The sentence may be up to six months imprisonment.

Arapio seems to be claiming (among other defenses) that he's entitled to a jury before a court convicts him of a crime and imposes any sentence of confinement.

I'm not sure how you feel about that proposition as a general matter, and indeed in my experience many people are surprised to learn that the right to a trial by jury does not extend to "petty," offenses such as this one. But as the Supreme Court observed in District of Columbia v. Clawans:

Quote:
It is settled by the decisions of this Court, which need not now be discussed in detail, that the right of trial by jury, thus secured, does not extend to every criminal proceeding. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution there were numerous offenses, commonly described as "petty," which were tried summarily without a jury, by justices of the peace in England, and by police magistrates or corresponding judicial officers in the Colonies, and punished by commitment to jail, a workhouse, or a house of correction. We think, as the Court of Appeals held and respondent concedes, that, apart from the prescribed penalty, the offense of which petitioner was convicted is, by its nature, of this class, and that were it not for the severity of the punishment, the offender could not, under our decisions, claim a trial by jury as of right.
That the crime of contempt falls into this category was confirmed as recently as 1966 in Cheff v. Schnackenberg.

So: there's no real question that federal law, as it now stands, permits a non-jury verdict and imposition of a six-month sentence.

Last edited by Bricker; 07-07-2017 at 06:51 PM.
  #35  
Old 07-07-2017, 11:09 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,737
So, being launched by trebuchet into the Grand Canyon is pretty much out of the question?
  #36  
Old 07-07-2017, 11:56 PM
beowulff beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 14,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
So, being launched by trebuchet into the Grand Canyon is pretty much out of the question?
Littering is illegal.
  #37  
Old 07-08-2017, 12:01 AM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,595
The only problem with sentencing him to his own outdoor camps is that they're run by people who used to work for him and are likely loyal to him.
  #38  
Old 07-08-2017, 12:18 AM
running coach running coach is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulff View Post
Littering is illegal.
I'm sure the animals will clean that up in no time.
  #39  
Old 07-08-2017, 12:45 AM
pool pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 3,667
Hmmm I had no idea that I guess in federal court you could be refused trial by jury, learn something new everyday. Also that seems bizarre the conversations with his lawyer wouldn't be protected under attorney-client privilege, that seems fucked up, but maybe these conversations weren't held during the attorney acting in that capacity but as a personal friend maybe?
  #40  
Old 07-08-2017, 12:59 AM
beowulff beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 14,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
The only problem with sentencing him to his own outdoor camps is that they're run by people who used to work for him and are likely loyal to him.
Actually, they're gone.
Penzone closed them after he was elected.
  #41  
Old 07-08-2017, 01:07 AM
Flyer Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
Hmmm I had no idea that I guess in federal court you could be refused trial by jury, learn something new everyday. Also that seems bizarre the conversations with his lawyer wouldn't be protected under attorney-client privilege, that seems fucked up, but maybe these conversations weren't held during the attorney acting in that capacity but as a personal friend maybe?
I wondered that myself.

It shows how full of hatred liberals are: instead of discussing the actual issues, they're unloading venom on Arpaio as if they were a bunch of rattlesnakes who hadn't eaten for a year. But I learned years ago that (with only a tiny handful of exceptions) liberals are far too angry and hate-filled to behave with decorum. They hate tradition, morality, and pretty much everything else that ever helped this country.
  #42  
Old 07-08-2017, 02:44 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 14,726
For criminal contempt? Yes, I think launching someone with a trebuchet for misdemeanor contempt would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. As would forcing him and him alone to wear pink clothing and eat green bologna, or whatever he did to his victims. But I defer to Bricker.

Can someone explain why the attorney that testified was allowed to testify? What was that about?

Last edited by foolsguinea; 07-08-2017 at 02:46 AM.
  #43  
Old 07-08-2017, 03:04 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
I wondered that myself.

It shows how full of hatred liberals are: instead of discussing the actual issues, they're unloading venom on Arpaio as if they were a bunch of rattlesnakes who hadn't eaten for a year. But I learned years ago that (with only a tiny handful of exceptions) liberals are far too angry and hate-filled to behave with decorum. They hate tradition, morality, and pretty much everything else that ever helped this country.
So, this isn't about the legal technicalities of the charges brought, but a demonstration of the ruthless liberal dominance in Arizona? Their iron grip on power. In Arizona. K.

Last edited by elucidator; 07-08-2017 at 03:05 AM.
  #44  
Old 07-08-2017, 08:24 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
Hmmm I had no idea that I guess in federal court you could be refused trial by jury, learn something new everyday. Also that seems bizarre the conversations with his lawyer wouldn't be protected under attorney-client privilege, that seems fucked up, but maybe these conversations weren't held during the attorney acting in that capacity but as a personal friend maybe?
IANAL but on the first question, I think it's because it's a contempt of court charge. Basically, it's a judge telling the defendant, "I told you to stop doing something and you kept on doing it. Now, because I'm so mad at you I could spit, I'm letting my buddy decide whether you kept on doing it out of malice or were just dumb." Being a criminal contempt of court charge it might have been eligible for a jury trial; I don't know. He also might have waived the right to a jury trial -- I haven't followed the preliminaries that closely -- but I doubt it.

On the second question, it was his current defense attorney who was blaming his former defense attorney of not explaining the order clear enough. Somehow I think, "Your honor, my client's former attorney was a dum-dum who couldn't make things clear to my client." "So, what did he tell your client?" "Um, I invoke attorney-client privilege." is going to fly.

Oh, and what they're talking about is six months, maximum, not a ten-year stretch in Florence.
  #45  
Old 07-08-2017, 08:57 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,275
I hope he gets to wear the pink underwear, eat the rancid bologna, sleep in 120 degree weather in a tent, and doesn't get any vaseline.
  #46  
Old 07-08-2017, 08:59 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Je suis Ikea.
Posts: 25,221
One of the exceptions to solicitor-client privilege is if the former client reveals the contents of the legal advice given by the lawyer. Another is if the former client is slagging the lawyer, alleging incompetence in the advice given by the lawyer. I would speculate that both came into play here, if Arpaio is trying to suggest that his former lawyer did not properly explain the requirements of the court order.
  #47  
Old 07-08-2017, 09:01 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Je suis Ikea.
Posts: 25,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
IANAL but on the first question, I think it's because it's a contempt of court charge. Basically, it's a judge telling the defendant, "I told you to stop doing something and you kept on doing it. Now, because I'm so mad at you I could spit, I'm letting my buddy decide whether you kept on doing it out of malice or were just dumb." Being a criminal contempt of court charge it might have been eligible for a jury trial; I don't know. He also might have waived the right to a jury trial -- I haven't followed the preliminaries that closely -- but I doubt it.
Bricker explains it in post 34: a jury trial is not available for "petty" offences, such as misdemeanours that only carry a six month maximum.
  #48  
Old 07-08-2017, 11:12 AM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes. Although it's you might be thinking of a different kind of situation. A contemnor may be jailed in order to compel him to end his contumacious conduct. ("Testify, or you'll go to jail until you do.") That is civil contempt, punished in summary fashion, and it's said that the contemnor holds the key to his own cell: at any time he wishes, he may comply with the court's command and purge himself of the contempt.

In this case, Arapio is charged with criminal contempt in violation of 18 USC § 401 et seq, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully disobey a lawful order of a court of the United States. The sentence may be up to six months imprisonment.

Arapio seems to be claiming (among other defenses) that he's entitled to a jury before a court convicts him of a crime and imposes any sentence of confinement.

I'm not sure how you feel about that proposition as a general matter, and indeed in my experience many people are surprised to learn that the right to a trial by jury does not extend to "petty," offenses such as this one. But as the Supreme Court observed in District of Columbia v. Clawans:



That the crime of contempt falls into this category was confirmed as recently as 1966 in Cheff v. Schnackenberg.

So: there's no real question that federal law, as it now stands, permits a non-jury verdict and imposition of a six-month sentence.
That works for me. Jury, judge, as long as the law and justice are served. I say, make him serve the ful six months, with NO preferential treatment or "niceties"... exactly the same as any other dirtbag.

Even though I personally would still would prefer him to serve it out in the same conditions as he inflicted on others - rotten baloney to eat, live in a tent, etc etc etc.
  #49  
Old 07-08-2017, 11:37 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
To this day I wonder why the so called liberal media did not force Trump and minions to separate from "Mr. Racial profiler" and abuser of power here.
Because, to put it bluntly, there is nothing Arpaio could do that would make Trump more ashamed than what Trump had already done and said, and that had done nothing to stop him from, say, trying to get a judge to recuse himself because he was a "mexican".
  #50  
Old 07-08-2017, 03:17 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
The only problem with sentencing him to his own outdoor camps is that they're run by people who used to work for him and are likely loyal to him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
That works for me. Jury, judge, as long as the law and justice are served. I say, make him serve the ful six months, with NO preferential treatment or "niceties"... exactly the same as any other dirtbag.

Even though I personally would still would prefer him to serve it out in the same conditions as he inflicted on others - rotten baloney to eat, live in a tent, etc etc etc.
Even if the tents are gone, even if the pink underwear is abolished, the inmates are still there.

I am sure he will make great friends with them over the course of his incarceration.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017