The judge called criminal contempt “an offense against the United States,” and she remarked that former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will “escape punishment for his willful violation” of a court order.

But in the end, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton determined Wednesday that she had no choice but to validate Arpaio’s Aug. 25 pardon by President Donald Trump and throw out the finding of guilt in his criminal contempt case because he had not yet been sentenced and was not afforded an opportunity to appeal the verdict.

Arpaio’s attorneys asked during a Wednesday morning hearing in Phoenix that all of the rulings during the contempt proceedings be discarded. Bolton has taken that request under advisement.

Arpaio's response to news

Arpaio did not attend the hearing. When reached at home by telephone, he said he had not yet spoken to his attorneys.

But his response was in classic Arpaio style:

“I’m happy the conviction was dismissed, especially since I am not guilty,” he told The Arizona Republic, “and I will be addressing that issue in the near future.”

And though that statement hinted at retribution, Arpaio would not let on what he had in mind.

Instead he praised Trump, saying, "It took me 85 years to find my hero and it's the president of the United States."

Pardon came before official conviction

Arpaio's case was unique. Unlike most criminal cases, in which a prosecuting agency files felony or misdemeanor charges, these allegations came from the judge in a racial-profiling lawsuit filed against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in federal court.

Arpaio admitted he had committed civil contempt of court for disobeying an order from U.S. District Judge Murray Snow to stop detaining people solely on suspicion they were in the country illegally. But deputies continued doing so for at least 17 months, and Arpaio continued making defiant statements that they could.

Snow referred Arpaio for criminal contempt charges. The case landed in Bolton’s court, and she asked the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute the case.

Arpaio went on trial in late June. On July 31, Bolton found him guilty of criminal contempt of court. He was scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 5.

Trump issued his pardon in August, before Arpaio had technically been convicted. Bolton asked attorneys from both sides for legal arguments on what she should do next.

At least seven organizations or individuals, including several members of Congress, petitioned to be allowed to file amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs asking Bolton not to accept the pardon or not to dismiss the finding of guilt.

Many considered the pardon to be an affront to the judiciary on Trump’s part. At the beginning of Wednesday’s hearing, Bolton granted legal standing in the case to the filers, but denied the requests.

Guilty verdict dismissed

In court Wednesday, Arpaio attorney Jack Wilenchik noted that Arpaio had neither been sentenced nor had the ability to appeal his conviction, two legal rights that were rendered moot by the pardon.

The closest analogy that attorneys and the judge could arrive at was when criminals die before they have a chance to appeal their convictions. In such cases, the conviction is vacated and the indictment dismissed.

But in this case, there was no indictment, only a judicial order to show cause why Arpaio should not be held in contempt of court. And though there was a finding of guilt, he was not yet technically convicted because he had not been sentenced, let alone been able to appeal his case.

Wilenchik asked that all orders in the case be vacated, lest those findings be used in present or future civil or criminal cases against Arpaio. Prosecutors asked only for the finding of guilt to be tossed.

Bolton dismissed the guilty verdict with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be tried again. She took under advisement her decision on the other rulings.

Another of Arpaio’s attorneys, Mark Goldman, challenged Bolton on her decision to grant legal standing to friend-of-court filers, saying he and his colleagues should be entitled to attorney’s fees for responding to those briefs. He later told The Republic he would likely appeal her decision.

But the only objections to Bolton’s ruling were made outside of the courtroom.

Foes protest outside the court

A scant assortment of protesters erected satiric posters outside the courthouse on Washington Street. Three women wearing Trump T-shirts shouted, “USA, USA.”

“From our perspective, it’s very important that the findings of fact remain,” said Kathy Brody, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. The ACLU brought the racial-profiling case against Arpaio and the Sheriff's Office.

Bolton, incidentally, noted that the plaintiffs in that case were protected by the rulings in Snow’s court and would not be affected by her decisions on the pardon and the guilty verdict.

Lydia Guzman, a Hispanic activist, teared up outside the courthouse.

“When the judge said the contempt is an offense against the United States, that should have meant something,” she said.

Wilenchik, on the other hand, equated it to the final frames of the film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” after the credits have run, when Matthew Broderick, who plays the title role, looks into the camera and says, “You’re still here? It’s over. Go home. Go.”

READ MORE:

Roberts: Joe Arpaio is still hunting for Obama's birth certificate

Congressional Democrats ask judge to toss Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio

After judge's challenge, DOJ still sides with Joe Arpaio on conviction