The trial of Joe Arpaio: NCAA tournament pushes court date to April 25

A hearing to discuss logistics of the upcoming criminal-contempt trial of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio devolved into mudslinging Wednesday morning, as both sides accused the other of trying to politicize the case.

Arpaio is charged with one count of criminal contempt for failing to stop enforcing federal immigration law after he was ordered to do so by a federal judge. The case stems from a long-running racial profiling case presided over by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow.

Snow has already found Arpaio and three of his aides in civil contempt for violating his orders in the case, and forwarded the criminal matter over to U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton. A finding of criminal contempt would mean that Arpaio willfully, rather than unintentionally, defied a judge’s orders.

Bolton agreed Wednesday to delay the trial, which was originally set to begin April 4, in order to avoid the influx of tourists that will be in Phoenix for the NCAA tournament. Arpaio's criminal-contempt trial will now begin April 25.

Will the trial be heard by a jury?

But the hearing at federal court in downtown Phoenix on Wednesday largely centered on whether the trial would be heard by Bolton or a jury.

Department of Justice prosecutors argued for a bench trial, claiming that Arpaio’s attorneys would attempt to influence jurors by their feelings on illegal immigration.

Justice Department trial attorney John Keller cited a defense motion that said Arpaio’s peers should have a voice regarding Snow's objectives and motives. Keller said this is irrelevant: the question is whether Arpaio intentionally violated the order Snow imposed.

“But that’s what the defendant wants to turn this into: a political spectacle,” Keller said. “That is exactly why the judge should not afford him this discretion. It should be about application of law and facts, (which are) perfectly tailored to a bench trial.”

Defense attorney Mel McDonald argued that it should be considered whether Snow disobeyed his own rules of the court.

McDonald reiterated the defense's long-standing allegation that the Department of Justice attempted to sway Arpaio’s election by announcing its decision to prosecute one day before early voting ballots could be submitted.

McDonald acknowledged a point made by DOJ attorneys and Bolton, however; it was the defense that had requested the October hearing date in which the DOJ announced the charges.

But McDonald contended he was surprised at the rush to announce the charge, and that the announcement amounted to “screaming headlines” for his client.

Arpaio attended the hearing but did not speak to the court. He was joined by two of his most loyal aides while in office -- Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan and spokesman Chris Hegstrom, both of whom have left the Sheriff's Office.

Bolton did not rule Wednesday on the bench or jury trial argument, but said she was inclined to choose bench. The bench trial, she said, would ensure Arpaio’s potential jail sentence was capped at six months, as the government had proposed.

A sentence for less than a year is typically associated with misdemeanor convictions, and misdemeanor defendants are typically not automatically afforded the right to a jury trial.

Arpaio's criminal charge came after a series of hearings in 2015, when a federal judge overseeing a racial-profiling case against the office accused Arpaio and four aides of violating his orders.

Though Arpaio and Sheridan admitted to violations, they insisted the mistakes were unintentional.

Arpaio and three of his aides were found to be in civil contempt, but only the 23-year sheriff was formally charged criminally. Bolton officially charged Arpaio in October.

The contempt case initially stemmed from three violations of Snow's orders within the case, but the criminal proceedings focus on just one: that Arpaio's deputies continued to detain persons believed to be in the country illegally without any suspicion of a state crime.

Though Arpaio could still face jail time, legal commentators have ventured that severe punishment is unlikely given the political turn of events.

Arpaio was ousted from office in the November -- two weeks after the charge -- by Democratic challenger Paul Penzone. Further, the former sheriff was an early and vocal ally of President Donald Trump, whose power could sway Arpaio's legal future in a number of ways, including with a pardon.

When speaking with reporters outside of court Wednesday, McDonald said he had no idea whether the government would move to dismiss the case.

McDonald said he would like to see the case go away, but "I don't think it's going to happen."

McDonald cited his client's career in public service as reason for leniency.

"Fifty-seven years, that's unheard of," he said. "I hate to see, at the finale of his career, to have him be forced to go through this process."

McDonald did not comment on whether he would seek a pardon.