What appears to be the final chapter of the Sheriff Joe Arpaio melodrama is finishing up. From AZCentral:
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Thursday denied former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s request to vacate his criminal contempt conviction after he was pardoned by President Donald Trump.
In her ruling, Bolton said while Trump’s pardon “undoubtedly spared Defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed. It did not, however, ‘revise the historical facts’ of this case.” …
Though Arpaio will not be penalized for this case, Wilenchik said the conviction could hypothetically be used against him in future legal proceedings.
“At this point what the court has to do is undo it all,” [Jack Wilenchik, one of Arpaio’s attorneys] [sic]. “It’s not saying he’s innocent, not saying he’s guilty, it’s really just a procedural right he’s entitled to.”
Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union and plaintiffs’ attorney in the underlying racial-profiling case, said Bolton’s order “gets it exactly right.”
“The court made detailed findings after a bench trial about Joe Arpaio’s criminal conduct,” Wang said. “The court’s findings and documents in the record of the case should stand and now will stand.”
It’s interesting that Arpaio’s attorney’s worry that the conviction could be a problem for Arpaio in the future. It brings into focus the limitations of the pardon power.
I can see the point of an appeal of the judge’s decision, which would be that the conviction is not final, but I think the counter-argument is that the pardon is an acknowledgement of of the guilt of the party involved. Vacatur is inappropriate, as it directly contradicts the will of the Executive.
