Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Donald Trump is joined by then-Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio at a campaign event in Marshalltown, Iowa on Jan. 26, 2016. | Mary Altaffer/AP Justice Department: Trump pardon merits nullifying rulings in Arpaio case

Former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is entitled to have the guilty verdict and all rulings in his criminal contempt of court case formally nullified by the court as a result of the pardon President Donald Trump issued last month, the Justice Department said in a court filing Thursday.

Responding to a request from U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, federal prosecutors acknowledged that there is no legal precedent that squarely answers the question of what should happen when someone receives a pardon after a verdict is reached (in this case by a judge) but before the conviction is officially entered.

In July, Bolton found Arpaio guilty of contempt for defying a court order requiring his deputies to stop racial profiling of Latinos. Trump pardoned the former sheriff in August, citing his long history of public service.

Citing the pardon, Arpaio's attorneys are asking that the convictions and all orders and opinions entered in the case be vacated—in essence, canceled.

"There is no case law directly addressing whether vacatur is appropriate under the circumstances at issue here—when a presidential pardon moots a criminal prosecution after a finding of guilt but before a judgment of conviction is entered," prosecutors wrote in their five-page submission.

They noted that the D.C. Circuit, acting in a case of a lobbyist pardoned by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the conviction should be vacated. Prosecutors also pointed to a case the 9th Circuit ordered vacated and dismissed after the defendant committed suicide following his conviction.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The government suggested that it would be unfair to leave the guilty verdict in place, while the pardon effectively denies Arpaio the right to appeal it.

"Federal appellate decisions from the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit support vacatur of the Court’s verdict and dismissal of the case because the presidential pardon has mooted the case prior to completion of direct appellate review," prosecutors said.

Several outside groups are urging Bolton to leave the guilty finding in place. Some advocates have also argued that Bolton, a Clinton appointee, should reject the pardon entirely as an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with the judicial branch.

An attorney working with the liberal group Protect Democracy said the Justice Department's response shows why Bolton should allow an outside lawyer to attack the legality of the pardon at a hearing the judge scheduled for Oct. 4

"As we said in our brief to the court, ours is an adversarial system. Since DOJ has now refused to provide the court with any opposition to Mr. Arpaio's motion, the law provides for the Court to appoint a private attorney to help it resolve the important issues at stake," said Jean-Jacques Cabou of law firm Perkins Coie.

The Justice Department did say that Arpaio is not entitled to have the records of his trial "expunged," which would essentially render them off-limits to the public.

"Vacatur does not alter the historical record nor entitle a defendant to expunge, alter, or seal the court record," prosecutors wrote. "No final judgment of conviction has been entered, and while vacatur is appropriate given the presidential pardon, the Court is not required to alter or expunge the underlying record."