Arpaio Conviction: Federal Judge Will Not Void Guilty Ruling, Despite Trump's Pardon
The word "despite" is misleading in that headline, because the two are independent of one another.
Per the DOJ:
"Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President. Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record."
It would be difficult to argue for expungement in this case, given that he is as guilty as sin. As the judge noted, a pardon doesn't change reality.
On the other hand, I disagree with the judge's contention that "accepting a pardon implies an admission of guilt." It's difficult to believe that a federal judge would make such a statement. It could be, for example, the convicted person's acknowledgement that the verdict was unjust and that the standard legal process offers no recourse. Let's assume you are innocent but are convicted by a dim-witted jury verdict, perhaps caused by bigotry, or perhaps by people unable to understand complex scientific testimony, or for various other reasons. As the case proceeds through appeal, your innocence is virtually irrelevant. Appeals are granted because of errors in the process, not because of a dumb-ass jury. As a general rule, if your defense was legally competent and the presiding judge committed no reversible errors, you're screwed. If the President reviews your case and pardons you because anybody of intelligence can see you are obviously innocent because of something like DNA evidence, you are not admitting guilt by accepting the pardon, but simply accepting the only justice available to you. That logic does not apply in this specific case, but the judge made a blanket statement which is really not justifiable, and is shocking to me. Juries render preposterous WTF decisions all the time, and they are not always set aside.
The judge cited to a SCOTUS opinion expressly stating that acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt. Good article here discussing that case and the general issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/26/is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/?utm_term=.c431db605c82
ReplyDeleteYour point is well taken, and the SCOTUS may have been overstating things way back when, but hard to fault a district judge now for relying on Supreme Court precedent.
Yeah, that was in 1915, when human beings were barely evolved above the level of warthogs, As the article states, "I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt." In other words, the law professor, despite knowing of the precedent, felt that no judge today could possibly be that stupid.
DeleteChallenge accepted!
So, yes, I still find the judge guilty of stupidity in the highest degree.
As an atheist, I still find myself hoping Sheriff Joe will roast in hell.
ReplyDeleteSecond that.
Delete