By Mark Anderson / The TRUTH HOUND
Stop the Presses News & Commentary
Photo credit: cronkitenewsonline.com
To see more timely reporting and unique commentary by “Stop the Presses” and help it grow, also click on this link for the Steemit.com website Simply sign up for a free Steemit account in the process. Again, that link is http://steemit.com/@truthhound Please click “upvote” when you go to TRUTH HOUND articles on Steemit
PHOENIX, Ariz.—One of the attorneys for former Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the veteran lawman’s criminal trial that just concluded Arizona is highly optimistic that Arpaio will not be convicted, because the three essential conditions under which he could be found guilty of a misdemeanor “contempt of court” charge were not met in court.
“We feel very happy,” Mark Goldman told this writer July 7, the day after closing arguments were heard in this widely watched case. The trial, initially expected to last at least eight days, ended up with only four days of testimony in latter June, plus the closing arguments July 6.
Goldman feels good about the case because federal prosecutors evidently didn’t come close to proving even the first of those three conditions, let alone the other two.
The first condition is that a 2011 federal court injunction—purportedly issued to try and “stop” Arpaio from apprehending illegal aliens—must be “clear and definite” in its meaning. While Arpaio is accused of contempt of court for allegedly defying the injunction, it appears the injunction is worded too vaguely for federal prosecutors to have a clear shot at winning their case against the popular lawman.
Notably, during Arpaio’s time as Maricopa County sheriff, the former DEA officer’s deputies would turn apprehended illegal aliens over to the federal government for processing in densely populated Maricopa County, over serious concerns in that border county about drug-running, human trafficking and other crimes fostered by the nation’s open-borders policies and attitudes.
In Federal District Court in Phoenix, Judge Susan Bolton “picked up on fact that the [injunction] was anything but clear and definite,” Goldman summarized, while stressing that since testimony from both sides revealed that the 40-page injunction failed to be clear and definite, then the other two conditions that the prosecution trotted out cannot realistically be met.
Those other conditions were:
• That Arpaio was aware of the injunction’s details; and
• That he knowingly and willfully violated the injunction.
“No one who testified understood it [the injunction’s meaning] when it was issued,” Goldman also said.
He said that the apparent clincher came when the star witness of the Department of Justice, Tim Casey—Arpaio’s former attorney who evidently turned against Arpaio—admitted during cross examination that the injunction was not clear and definite.
“To me, that’s enough to make this whole case go away . . . so Joe’s feeling pretty good at this point,” Goldman also said July 7. Arpaio himself was not yet at liberty to directly speak with the TRUTH HOUND, pending the judge’s decision.
Also according to Goldman, Joe Sousa, who was Arpaio’s lieutenant for the human-smuggling unit at the Sheriff’s Department, testified for the defense that, with Casey serving as Arpaio’s attorney at the time, never once did Casey inform Sousa or the department that they may have incorrectly interpreted the injunction when going about their job of apprehending those found to be illegal aliens during standard law enforcement, which the feds have constantly labeled as “racial profiling.”
And while Casey had free access to the smuggling unit, it would have been his job to know of, or discover, a possible injunction violation and communicate his views to the Sheriff’s Department, Goldman added.
“Joe never interfered. And he had Casey as an attorney to instruct [Joe’s] subordinates on how to interpret the injunction,” Goldman said, adding that there were several witnesses that government didn’t even bother calling to the stand.
Nor was it necessary for Joe himself to testify. And since he was unable to secure a jury trial, Judge Bolton will decide this matter. But that won’t happen until July 21 or later. That’s the date that attorneys for both sides were asked to submit briefs on “applicable law” to aid the judge in deciding this case.
Prosecutors have maintained that Arpaio intentionally and defiantly prolonged patrols to apprehend illegal aliens for 17 months after the injunction was issued. But as July 21 approaches, it appears that this narrative is part of an effort by the Justice Department, in a carry-over from the Obama administration, to conduct a liberal political “hit” against conservative Arpaio.
That view is widely held because this misdemeanor lawsuit, filed just days before the last sheriff’s election in November 2016, helped unseat Arpaio in his re-election bid. Arpaio’s backers say that the case vividly illustrates one key way that left-leaning politicians and their cohorts in the courts, major media and elsewhere go about discrediting concerted, effective efforts to secure America’s borders.