# Joe Arpaio's trial starts today **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 26, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923 "2017-06-26T16:08:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/41 "2017-07-08T05:07:03Z")
> [@pool](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/42 "2017-07-08T06:44:25Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/43 "2017-07-08T07:04:29Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/44 "2017-07-08T12:24:24Z")
> [@pool](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/45 "2017-07-08T12:57:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/46 "2017-07-08T12:59:42Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/47 "2017-07-08T13:01:04Z")
> [@DesertDog](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/48 "2017-07-08T15:12:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/49 "2017-07-08T15:37:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/50 "2017-07-08T19:17:29Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > 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. > [@SteveG1](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/51 "2017-07-08T19:58:54Z")
Sorry. I really think Joe Arpaio combined the worst impulses toward his fellow men with sanctimonious arrogance with a childlike and cowardly inclination to bully anyone weaker than he who came to his attention, under color of authority. He was awful. And unfortunately he is now old and sick and I can’t, even as an evil liberal, really enjoy the prospect of punishing him. At best, I can hope this trial will demonstrate that the rule of law still, eventually, will apply to such people, even in Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/52 "2017-07-09T01:32:56Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > 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. It would be extremely unusual, under the federal sentencing guidelines, for a first offense misdemeanor to get jail time, much less the maximum sentence. So I’m not sure I understand your “exactly the same as any other dirtbag,” wish. If he’s treated exactly the same, he won’t get jail time. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2017, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/53 "2017-07-09T06:19:26Z")
Same people are still there, same people who stood around with their hands in their pockets and let this shit happen for…how long? How many years? The one’s who weren’t actively cheering and whistling. He’s gone, they’re still there. “Basket of deplorables” seems apt, a _piñata_ would be an improvement. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2017, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/54 "2017-07-09T13:08:09Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > 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. That’s kind of what I said in my second paragraph. > [@me](#): > > 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. That should be, “Somehow I _don’t_ think,” of course. [Arpaio.com](http://www.arpaio.com/top-ten/index.php) is run by one of his former lieutenants who resigned and moved to Colorado; it’s inactive right now. It was to be taken down after Penzone took office in March but it didn’t happen. Probably waiting for the URL to expire. Click on the Blood on Arpaio’s Hands bar for some of the human cost of his tenure. And [here](http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/topic/arpaio-6498482) is an omnibus page of the _Phoenix New Times_ articles on Nickelbag Joe for the past twenty years. Full disclosure: Arpaio arrested and perp-walked in 2007 the two partners who owned the paper at the time. This may make their neutrality doubtful. Frankly, I see six months in jail as a little light; I’d prefer a year and a day felony conviction instead. The misdemeanor contempt charge is what the courts went with, though. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/55 "2017-07-10T13:12:22Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > …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. Who gave you a copy of our memo? ANSWER ME. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/56 "2017-07-10T13:32:00Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 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. Well then, would you care to represent that tradition, morality, and help that Arpaio’s tent city brought to our country? Would you care to defend his actions? After all, if all we’re going on is a seething hate for America, it should be trivial to point out how good Arpaio and his tent city was. Christ, I can sorta understand this kind of stupid bullshit from the people whose side of the political spectrum didn’t just elect Donald Trump president of the united states, but coming from Republicans, it’s just insane. It shows a complete and utter break with reality. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/57 "2017-07-10T21:51:01Z")
> [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](#): > > And unfortunately he is now old and sick and I can’t, even as an evil liberal, really enjoy the prospect of punishing him. At best, I can hope this trial will demonstrate that the rule of law still, eventually, will apply to such people, even in Arizona. But I can. To hell with him, let him rot for as long as possible 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/58 "2017-07-10T21:52:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It would be extremely unusual, under the federal sentencing guidelines, for a first offense misdemeanor to get jail time, much less the maximum sentence. > > So I’m not sure I understand your “exactly the same as any other dirtbag,” wish. If he’s treated exactly the same, he won’t get jail time. I can still hope. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/59 "2017-07-12T08:41:31Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I can still hope. My observation was that the two hopes you expressed are mutually exclusive: (1) Treat him exactly the same as any other dirtbag; and (2) Give him jail time. You cannot have both. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/60 "2017-07-12T08:47:03Z")
By the way, does anyone here believe that the denial of a jury trial for Arapio is unfair? I laid out the legal citations above to defend the denial of a jury, but the words of the Sixth Amendment are: > [@](#): > > **In all criminal prosecutions** , the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, **by an impartial jury** of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (emphasis added) Does anyone here believe that the simple words of the Sixth Amendment should be applied here, and that Joe’s therefore entitled to have a jury, not a judge, determine his guilt? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923.md?page=4)