# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/141 "2017-08-26T16:06:32Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > So has it already been hashed out if this is constitutional or not? Just because one guy says it doesn’t mean it is, but it does mean that apparently some kind of argument can be made. The pardon itself is Constitutional. The problem is that the crime underlying the criminal contempt charge was that of violating citizens’ Constitutional rights, and this gets Arpaio off the hook for that. So the pardon may be Constitutional, but it’s effectively invalidated other people’s Constitutional rights by giving a law enforcement officer free rein to violate them without consequence. Unless it’s possible to add Trump as a party to any suit against Arpaio due to this action, the only remedy is impeachment, and that isn’t gonna happen before 2019. (Removal probably wouldn’t happen even then, but at least make the Senate vote on the growing set of potential charges.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/142 "2017-08-26T16:07:54Z")
Except it seems unlikely his sentence would have included [jail time.](http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/07/31/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-found-guilty-criminal-contempt-court/486278001/) > [@](#): > > Although Arpaio officially faces as many as six months of incarceration, many legal experts say even that is unlikely. > > “I’d say the likelihood of Sheriff Arpaio spending six months in jail are slim to none,” said Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona. The tougher question, Charlton said, is whether Arpaio will get any jail time. > > “The arguments on both sides are compelling,” he said. “On the one hand, you have a significant number of lives altered and destroyed because of Joe Arpaio’s misconduct. > > "On the other hand, you have an aging octogenarian who has otherwise lived a life without any criminal conviction, and served his whole career in law enforcement. That makes it very difficult for a judge.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/143 "2017-08-26T16:39:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Except it seems unlikely his sentence would have included [jail time.](http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/07/31/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-found-guilty-criminal-contempt-court/486278001/) That’s already been said, other than the use of the word ‘except,’ the use of which I don’t grok here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/144 "2017-08-26T17:03:57Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > You know more than I do about legal details, but wouldn’t you have to prove a direct connection? > > Prove he actually gave the order or knew about it and deliberately covered it up? > > Given that he didn’t personally “whack” people, and didn’t out and out say “kill that guy” that would be a tough one. > > Proving he was simply a gross incompetent would be an easier thing to prove - the old “you were in command so you should have known and done something about it” tactic. Arizona has a “Negligent homicide,” law, ARS 13-1102: > [@](#): > > A person commits negligent homicide if with criminal negligence the person causes the death of another person… I haven’t read the annotations or case law that would be necessary to understand how this is applied, and I am not directly familiar with the factual allegations that relate to the deaths, so I simply don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/145 "2017-08-26T17:42:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > When the prisons free every last soul who’s in worse physical shape than he is, I’d be good with letting him off the hook due to age. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > That’s already been said, other than the use of the word ‘except,’ the use of which I don’t grok here. You seemed to be alluding to him spending time in prison. It may have already been said, but it hadn’t been cited and it appeared you needed a reminder. 😉 More than likely there was nothing to “let him off” of, other than perhaps a fine and/or some community service. But not prison. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/146 "2017-08-26T18:20:33Z")
Hmmm… so it was a dumb move on Trump’s part, because Joe may not have served time anyhow. But mayyyybe a fortuitous move in that it shows Trump’s true colors without really changing the outcome in the case. And maybe helps ‘dem Dems’ in 2018 (and all of Trump’s opponents right now!). ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/147 "2017-08-26T18:35:10Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Hmmm… so it was a dumb move on Trump’s part, because Joe may not have served time anyhow. > > But mayyyybe a fortuitous move in that it shows Trump’s true colors without really changing the outcome in the case. And maybe helps ‘dem Dems’ in 2018 (and all of Trump’s opponents right now!). Blistering-editorial-from-AZ-s-largest-newspaper-Institutional-racism-is-clearly-Trump-s-goal The most widely read newspaper in Arizona, the Arizona Republic, is out with an absolutely scorching op-ed on Donald Trump’s nearly unthinkable pardon of notorious racist Joe Arpaio, who was recently convicted for refusing a federal judge’s orders to cease his racial-profiling operations. The editorial board of the Arizona Republic did not hold back: His pardon of Joe Arpaio elevated the disgraced former Maricopa County sheriff to monument status among the immigration hardliners and nationalists in Trump’s base. This erases any doubt about whether Trump meant to empower them after the violence in Charlottesville. … The pardon was a slap to those who worked through the judicial system to make Arpaio accountable, too. It robbed the people hurt by his policies of justice – even before a judge could mete out a sentence. The pardon was a sign of pure contempt for every American who believes in justice, human dignity and the rule of law. … But Trump spent last week demonstrating that he wants to be president of the few. By pardoning Arpaio, Trump made it clear that institutional racism is not just OK with him. It is a goal. > **[Our View: Donald Trump just resurrected Joe Arpaio from irrelevance](https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2017/08/25/donald-trump-resurrects-joe-arpaio-irrelevance/604067001/)** > > Donald Trump said he was going to pardon former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. But knowing in advance didn't soften the blow to Latinos - and equal justice. There is a “school of thought” that he intends to keep doing everything he can to undermine the courts, and is testing the waters to start handing out pardons to ALL his buddies (and himself?) that might be implicated in Meuller’s Russia investigations. I suspect that thinking is correct, as that mess will eventually be tied directly to him and his money (all he cares about) and he is worried that he may actually have to finally answer for something. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/148 "2017-08-26T18:50:39Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Unless it’s possible to add Trump as a party to any suit against Arpaio due to this action, the only remedy is impeachment, and that isn’t gonna happen before 2019. (Removal probably wouldn’t happen even then, but at least make the Senate vote on the growing set of potential charges.) You mean, “Based on this pardon, Trump is responsible for the bad shit Arpaio did before that I’m suing Arpaio for?” No. That is not a cause of action that can be sustained. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/149 "2017-08-26T19:21:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There might be another purpose to this pardon - to signal to anyone under investigation for the Russia thing that if they hold the line and refuse to cooperate with Mueller, the president is willing to pardon them. The potential downside (for trump) is that people who are pardoned _can’t_ plead the fifth. ---
**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:** [August 26, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/150 "2017-08-26T19:51:21Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > The potential downside (for trump) is that people who are pardoned _can’t_ > plead the fifth. Why not? What is the penalty for them if they do? Contempt of court? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/151 "2017-08-26T20:30:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Why not? What is the penalty for them if they do? > > Contempt of court? And it goes on their permanent record!! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/152 "2017-08-26T22:44:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Why not? What is the penalty for them if they do? > > Contempt of court? Yes! But it’s the kind of contumacious conduct that can be summarily punished by a judge-- no trial, no conviction. . . and no effective pardon. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/153 "2017-08-26T22:52:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes! > > But it’s the kind of contumacious conduct that can be summarily punished by a judge-- no trial, no conviction. . . and no effective pardon. And what if the person refuses to comply with the punishment? Double-Secret Contempt? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/154 "2017-08-27T01:49:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And what if the person refuses to comply with the punishment? Double-Secret Contempt? The condemnor is taken into custody by the court security staff. He doesn’t have a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/155 "2017-08-27T04:30:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes! > > But it’s the kind of contumacious conduct that can be summarily punished by a judge-- no trial, no conviction. . . and no effective pardon. So there are different flavors of contempt, some of which are unpardonable? I probably missed the post where you explain this; feel free to link if so. If so, I can imagine a situation in which Trump tries, then rails against and threatens the judge when the subject of his pardon stays in the slammer or what have you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/156 "2017-08-27T04:44:43Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > So there are different flavors of contempt, some of which are unpardonable? I probably missed the post where you explain this; feel free to link if so. > > If so, I can imagine a situation in which Trump tries, then rails against and threatens the judge when the subject of his pardon stays in the slammer or what have you. There is a difference between direct and indirect contempt. Direct contempt occurs when the disregard of the court’s order is seen and heard by the judge, and the offense constituting the disregard of the order occurs in the actual presence of the court. This type of offense may be punished summarily, and typically the prisoner is said to have the keys to his own cell: that is, he may at any time purge himself of contempt by complying with the judge’s order. Indirect contempt, as exhibited by Arpaio, takes place outside the court’s walls and may be punished only after a trial. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/157 "2017-08-27T07:06:49Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > This goes way beyond Arpaio. If the president feels that he can pardon anyone who defies a federal court order then we have a serious situation. I hope that the Republicans in Congress will see that and will look beyond their own reelection prospects. Do me a solid and wish me up a pony while you’re at it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/158 "2017-08-27T11:00:51Z")
Can’t link right now, but the Washington Post reports that Trump asked Sessions to stop the prosecution against Arpaio (during the case, obviously). If so, is that legal? Is it impeachable? Not that I think it would mean impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/159 "2017-08-27T11:39:58Z")
Here’s the link: > **[Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-asked-sessions-about-closing-case-against-arpaio-an-ally-since-birtherism/2017/08/26/15e5d7b2-8a7f-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html)** > > Since spring, the president has wanted to help the former sheriff, whom he has admired from ‘birther’ crusade to immigration crackdown. ---
**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:** [August 27, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/160 "2017-08-27T14:27:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is a difference between direct and indirect contempt. > > Direct contempt occurs when the disregard of the court’s order is seen and heard by the judge, and the offense constituting the disregard of the order occurs in the actual presence of the court. This type of offense may be punished summarily, and typically the prisoner is said to have the keys to his own cell: that is, he may at any time purge himself of contempt by complying with the judge’s order. > > Indirect contempt, as exhibited by Arpaio, takes place outside the court’s walls and may be punished only after a trial. Just out of curiosity does that mean that Trump **cannot** pardon someone for that, or just that no president ever has, and we wouldn’t think that he would, until he does? I guess, is there a specific rule that says that someone cannot be pardoned for direct contempt of court, or is it just one of those unwritten, self evident rules that we used to think meant something? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923.md?page=9)