Where Joe Arpaio's Lawyers See Case of 'Judicial Housekeeping,' 9th Circuit Judge Sees Extraordinary Request
"It's not fair to say you're forever convicted, but you cannot appeal that," said John "Jack" Wilenchik, counsel for the presidentially pardoned former Arizona sheriff, at a hearing before the Ninth Circuit Wednesday.
October 23, 2019 at 03:44 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
John "Jack" Wilenchik, the lawyer for former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, on Wednesday asked a federal appellate panel for what he called an act of "judicial housekeeping."
With President Donald Trump pardoning Arpaio in 2017, the federal judge in Phoenix overseeing the criminal contempt of court case against him granted his motion to dismiss his case. But that judge—U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton of the District of Arizona—declined to vacate the court record in the case, finding the president's pardon did "not erase a judgment of conviction, or its underlying legal and factual findings."
Wilenchik on Wednesday told a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that Bolton had erred, and that his client's presidential pardon should have triggered an "automatic" vacatur of the district court orders in the case.
"It's not fair to say you're forever convicted but you cannot appeal," Wilenchik said.
But Wilenchik's argument was met with questions from the three judges considering the appeal—Ninth Circuit Judges Jay Bybee, N. Randy Smith and Daniel Collins—indicating that Arpaio's request for vacatur might be deficient or moot since he'd never been sentenced or served jail time as a result of the conviction. Smith, in particular, seemed skeptical that Arpaio had presented a sufficient reason to overturn the district court's decision.
Under questioning from Smith, Wilenchik said the appropriate standard of review for Bolton's decision was "abuse of discretion."
"What part of the court's order was an abuse?" Smith asked. "What law was misapplied? Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding what you say she did wrong."
Smith returned to the subject with James Pearce, an appellate attorney in the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, at the podium.
"Did you ever say to the court, 'Madam, you have a discretionary decision to make here and these are the factors you should consider?'" Smith asked.
The DOJ notably declined to defend Bolton's vacatur decision, prompting the Ninth Circuit to appoint Boies Schiller Flexner partner Christopher Caldwell as a special prosecutor to defend the lower court's ruling. But Caldwell too got a grilling from Smith over whether Bolton had sufficiently weighed the appropriate factors considering Arpaio's motion to vacate.
Caldwell said that the district court did consider an amicus brief filed by civil plaintiffs who had filed the lawsuit against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office that resulted in a finding that Arpaio's policies led to racial profiling and unlawful traffic stops of Latinos. Those plaintiffs, Caldwell said, had laid out the case for there being a public interest in maintaining a full and public record of the criminal case against Arpaio.
"Mr. Arpaio got what he wanted out of the pardon. There was nothing inequitable or unfair as a result," Caldwell said. Even the DOJ brief arguing to vacate the record below outlined the "egregious facts" underlying Arpaio's conviction, he said.
"The public interest in terms of the victims of Mr. Arpaio's contemptuous conduct were known to the court and were presented to the court," Caldwell said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: Lawyers for Big Tech Give Harris Benefit of Doubt, Despite Pummeling They Took Under Biden
Dapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Saying 'No Answer Is Required' Is Insufficient Under Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, Court Says in Novel Ruling
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250