Arpaio Joe 2017 07 06 Associated Press 200w

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s fate in hands of judge at criminal trial

Arpaio Joe 2017 07 06 Associated Press 200w

The fate of Joe Arpaio, who embraced the moniker “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” rests with a judge after lawyers wrapped up closing arguments Thursday at his criminal trial on the topic that helped Arpaio win a nationwide reputation —immigration.

Joe Arpaio, who held six terms as sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County before losing reelection last November, is accused of criminal contempt for defying a judge’s 2011 court order to refrain from racially profiling Latinos during patrols.

The question at the center of the trial, which started in late June in a federal court in Phoenix, is whether Arpaio intentionally violated the court’s order to stop Sheriff’s Department personnel from racially profiling during patrols.

In order to win a conviction, prosecutors must prove Joe Arpaio intentionally violated the judge’s order. Despite acknowledging that he prolonged patrols which targeted Latinos after the judge’s 2011 order, Arpaio insists any profiling was not intentional.

The case was not heard by a jury. If U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton finds Arpaio guilty of the misdemeanor charge, the 85-year-old could face up to six months in jail.

The brash and outspoken Arpaio won national fame — or infamy, depending on the point of view — for policies that made incarceration tough (such as housing inmates in canvas tents) or possibly humiliating (such as forcing inmates to wear pink underwear). Most of all, he was known for crackdowns on illegal immigration.

With 4 million people, Maricopa County is Arizona’s largest county and home to Phoenix. According to Pew Research Center data from 2014, 30% of country residents are Latino, almost double the number from 1990.

Arpaio Joe 2017 07 06 Associated Press 640w

Joe Arpaio’s latest legal battle has drawn the attention of many immigrant activists who say a conviction would mean a long-delayed comeuppance.

But Joe Arpaio’s tough immigration tactics have also drawn support, including that of President Trump, who invited Joe Arpaio to stand alongside him at rallies during his presidential campaign. Until last fall, he coasted to reelection every four years.

A defiant Joe Arpaio once boasted that that he continued to crack down on immigrants illegally in the country even after complaints alleging profiling by his department. “After [the Justice Department] went after me, we arrested 500 more just for spite,” Arpaio told supporters in Houston in 2009 during a fundraiser for an anti-illegal-immigration group.

Joe Arpaio’s latest legal fight is one of a series he has faced over the years. In years past, was able to project a defiant tone after prevailing in court. For example, in 2009, his attorneys argued successfully that then-U.S. District Judge Mary H. Murguia could not hear his case impartially because her twin sister was the leader of the National Council of La Raza, a prominent advocacy group.

But in recent years, he’s suffered courtroom setbacks.

In 2013, a judge found that Joe Arpaio’s deputies had systematically profiled Latinos during traffic stops as they tried to find people in the country illegally.

In January 2015, U.S. District Judge David Campbell found that Joe Arpaio improperly used a law intended to combat identity theft. Instead, his department employed the law to round up more than 800 men and women in the country illegally during workplace raids. The judge called the use of the law unconstitutional.

Article courtesy of Los Angeles Times

Photo copyright Associated Press

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms — — — — —

{jcomments on}


Leave a Reply