Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

[bob]

"For completeness," regarding Arpaio's mandamus petition (to a compel a jury trial):

Jun 6 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.

I expect the denial to appear on Monday's order list. Which is also the first day of Arpaio's trial.

[Tesibria]

Docket update

06/22/2017 -- 169 -- TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on June 26, 2017, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 -- 170 -- [USA] RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to [Arpaio] MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Resolution of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus of Joseph M. Arpaio in the Supreme Court of the United States of America . (Cataldo, Simon) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 -- 171 -- [ARPAIO] MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Change of Venue by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Change of Venue, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion for Change of Venue)(Mayr, Vincent) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 -- 172 -- [USA] REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to [Arpaio] MOTION to Quash Subpoena of U.S. Attorney General. (Cataldo, Simon) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

I'll decide whether to pull the docs after seeing what rulings Bolton issues tomorrow....

[rpenner]

Docket update

06/22/2017 -- 169 -- TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on June 26, 2017, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 -- 170 -- [USA] RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to [Arpaio] MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Resolution of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus of Joseph M. Arpaio in the Supreme Court of the United States of America . (Cataldo, Simon) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 -- 171 -- [ARPAIO] MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Change of Venue by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Change of Venue, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion for Change of Venue)(Mayr, Vincent) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 -- 172 -- [USA] REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to [Arpaio] MOTION to Quash Subpoena of U.S. Attorney General. (Cataldo, Simon) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

I'll decide whether to pull the docs after seeing what rulings Bolton issues tomorrow....

Calendar Tomorrow or Courthouse Tomorrow = Monday?

[Reality Check]

They want a jury trial and a change of venue? What's next? A pony?

[Chilidog]

[bob]

They want a jury trial and a change of venue? What's next? A pony?

A change of venue can technically be requested at any time before the jury is sworn in, but this 11th-hour request reeks of delay-seeking gamesmanship (and bill padding).

And the purpose of changing venue is to get a fair jury pool. If there's no jury trial, there's no néed to change venue. So I suspect the motion will be denied as moot once SCOTUS' denial is published. (Like with cert. petitions, a grant order would have been published yesterday.)

[Northland10]

They want a jury trial and a change of venue? What's next? A pony?

A change of venue can technically be requested at any time before the jury is sworn in, but this 11th-hour request reeks of delay-seeking gamesmanship (and bill padding).

Arpaio's current attorney was involved with the whole Andrew Thomas (the disbarred former prosecutor) BS, so I expect many delay-seeking games and other disruptive filings.

[ObjectiveDoubter]

They want a jury trial and a change of venue? What's next? A pony?

A change of venue can technically be requested at any time before the jury is sworn in, but this 11th-hour request reeks of delay-seeking gamesmanship (and bill padding).

And the purpose of changing venue is to get a fair jury pool. If there's no jury trial, there's no néed to change venue. So I suspect the motion will be denied as moot once SCOTUS' denial is published. (Like with cert. petitions, a grant order would have been published yesterday.)

You answered my questions before I got to ask. You're just the best, Bob. Now it's Friday, so don't forget your weekly duty, to tune in to the piece of kaka, Gallups, for us. What would we do without your sacrifice each Friday?

[bob]

Now it's Friday, so don't forget your weekly duty, to tune in to the piece of kaka, Gallups, for us.

I only listen if there's a reasonable likelihood of something relevant to Arpaio/Zullo/Montgomery/Klayman, etc. If the announced guests are just Gallups' son, Shoesmith, and some rando Bible Thumper, I'll let the sadists at RWW do the hard work.

[bob]

Ariz. Rep.: Criminal contempt trial of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio set to open.

A good primer, but nothing particularly new, except perhaps:

A legal defense fund solicits donations regularly, recycling email addresses from Arpaio’s old campaign fundraisers. Chad Willems, Arpaio’s former campaign manager who runs the fund, declined to provide a dollar figure, but said Arpaio “still enjoys a lot of support from people here in Maricopa County and throughout Arizona and the rest of the country.”

* * *

Willems did confirm a $300,000 contribution made by the National Center for Police Defense.

[Tesibria]

Docket Update:

06/23/2017 -- 173 -- [USA] RESPONSE ... as to Joseph M Arpaio re: 171 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Change of Venue . (Keller, John) (Entered: 06/23/2017) (Essentially, what Bob said...)

Links (to yesterday and today's docs) at WYE

[Tesibria]

a few news articles out today previewing the trial scheduled to start on Monday ...

Megan Cassidy, "Criminal contempt trial of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio set to open," AZ Republic.

***
The court proceeding is scheduled to last for two weeks, with prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section.
***
The court session Monday morning likely will draw a who’s who of Maricopa County politics. Both Arpaio supporters and adversaries expressed concern about space constraints and wondered if there would be a system for who scores a seat in the gallery.
***
[end of article contains a summary of Arpaio's anticipated arguments]

Jacques Billeaud, "Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Face Day of Reckoning in Court," AP/US News & World Report
(Contains quite a few quotes from supporters and foes...)

[Reality Check]

Motion to expedite mandamus petition denined!

16-1422
IN RE JOSEPH M. ARPAIO
The motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

Edit: I assume this is an indication of the disposition of the court not to grant the petition later?

[Reality Check]

I assume the trial is going on as scheduled today?

[bob]

A fair assumption. There are other possibilities, but I think denying the mandamus petition at the fall's long conference is the most likely outcome.

And, yes, trial is starting today. (He's in court now.)

[bob]

USN&WR: The Latest: Prosecutor Uses Joe Arpaio's Words Against Him:

The criminal trial of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has opened with a federal prosecutor using the former lawman's news releases and TV interviews against him.

The criminal trial of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has opened with a federal prosecutor using the former lawman's news releases and TV interviews against him.

Arpaio is on trial on a contempt-of-court charge for violating a judge's order to stop conducting the traffic patrols targeting immigrants that helped make him a national political figure.

In opening arguments Monday, prosecutor Victor Salgado cited news releases and TV interviews by Arpaio bragging about his immigration enforcement. The prosecutor says Arpaio's own words prove the government's case that he willfully defied a judge's orders.

Arpaio's lawyer vigorously disputed that a person with nearly 60 years in law enforcement would violate a court order on purpose.

[RVInit]

Arpaio's lawyer vigorously disputed that a decent person with nearly 60 years in law enforcement would violate a court order on purpose.

FIFH

[bob]

WaPo: The Latest: Attorney forced to testify against Joe Arpaio:

A lawyer who once represented former Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a racial profiling case has testified that he had several meetings with Arpaio to discuss a court order that barred traffic patrols targeting immigrants.

Attorney Tim Casey was forced to testify Monday at Arpaio’s trial on a criminal contempt-of-court charge for prolonging the patrols after a judge ordered them stopped.

The questioning got bogged down in objections over whether attorney-client privilege barred Casey from providing details of his conversations with Arpaio.

Casey says he told Arpaio that his officers either had to arrest immigrants on state charges or release them.

Prosecutors say Arpaio turned the detainees over to federal authorities in violation of the judge’s order.

[Tesibria]

I received a detailed BOTG report from Brian Reilly (published with permission):

Observations about the Arpaio trial up to the lunch break.

As I waited for the court house doors to open at 7:30 am, Arpaio's defense team rolled two large carts with boxes marked "Exhibits." There were 21 boxes. Nine of the boxes were marked "Arpaio & Plaintiff's Exhibits." Twelve of the boxes were only marked "Arpaio Exhibits." I was surprised by the number of exhibits.

The turnout for Arpaio was light. At 8:50 AM, there were 47 spectators. Nine of the spectators were members of the press. Arpaio's former campaign chairman, Chad Willem was present as well a the head of the NCPD, Jim Fotis. I overheard Willems wondering out loud, "Where is everybody?" He then commented, "I thought there would be more people." There were two people wearing Knights Of Columbus shirts who were in support of Arpaio, an elderly woman and a few others. A reporter who attended Joe's Birthday party told me that there was a sign that encouraged Joe's fans to attend court. His turnout was very poor. I was surprised.

Arpaio's defense attorneys are Dennis and John Wilenchik as well as Attorney Goldman of Goldman & Zwilliger. Goldman looked like he just got off the sailing vessel Pirates of the Caribbean. Imagine a heavy Johnny Depp. Goldman had two beads hanging from his beard and what looked like a gold crescent moon hanging from his left ear. His long shoulder length kinky black hair was unkempt. Goldman wore a grey suit while Arpaio wore a dark grey suit.

Arpaio looked very tired. He looked like he was really feeling his age.

During the US opening statement the defense attorney Willenchik noted that MCSO's Jack MacIntyre had passed away. MacIntyre was scheduled as a possible witness and Judge Bolton was shocked by his death, as were the US Attorneys.

In the US opening statement they presented the following:

171 individuals were illegally detained and for 17 months Arpaio ignored the order of the court.

1.) The December 23, 2011 Preliminary Injunction was a "Clear and Definite Order.

2.) Arpaio Knew of the Order.

3.) Arpaio's violation was "Willful.

It was alleged that Arpaio was "indifferent to the order."

The Defense opening statement:

Disagreed with US Attorneys statement and claimed that the decision in Arizona vs. US, 387, June 25, 2012 was authority that Arpaio was complying with federal law.

Case is about "politics." [Arpaio] followed the law."

The sheriff was never advised of the order and never received the order.

Attorney Casey was alleged to be the "primary person who dropped the ball" regarding the court order. There is not a record of Casey informing anyone of the order.

Case is ridiculous.

Judge Snow's order was not clear in any way, shape or form. Only Arpaio got [the order] right.

Sheriff was following laws that weren't covered by the injunction.

There is not a record of Casey informing anyone of the order.

Casey on the stand.

Questioned by US Attorney

Once Tim Casey began to testify, with numerous objections from the defense, the US utilized Casey's billing records to show numerous contacts made between Casey and Arpaio regarding the Melendres case. (Exhibit 34). Casey explained the preliminary order to Arpaio. The effect of the ruling, and 14th amendment issues." The injunction was the big ticket.. You either arrest or release. "

There were numerous documented contacts by Casey and Arpaio regarding Melendres as evidenced by Casey's billing statements.

[* * *]

It should be noted that Tim Casey brought an ethics attorney (Terri Clark) to court today. After a long discussion and protests by the defense, Casey was allowed to consult with his attorney and she was very quick to make objections as was defense attorney Wilenchek. There were numerous objections during Casey's testimony and the majority of the objections had to do with privilege, confidentiality and hearsay. My estimate is that about 60% of the objections by the defense and the ethics attorney were sustained and about 40% of the objections by the defense were overruled.

Judge Snow's waiver of privilege was decided in Melendres ECF 1094, page 8, line 7. Judge Bolton said, that waiver of privilege as related to the preliminary injunction, has already been determined to have been made by Judge Snow.

Tim Casey's billing records were introduced in court (Exhibit 34) . They show evidence of many contacts with Sheriff Arpaio where Casey met and conferred with Arpaio. Casey had plenty of opportunity to discuss the court ordered injunction by Judge Snow. Casey billing records show the following meeting dates with Arpaio:

Jan. 3, 2012; Jan. 17, 2012; March 23, 2012; July 10, 2012; July 12, 2012; July 16, 2012; July 23, 2012; July 25, 2012; July 27, 2012; July 31, 2012; August 2, 2012; August 3, 2012; August 22, 2012; August --, 2012; September 14, 2012; October 11, 2012; October 12, 2012 (Redacted) ; October 15, 2012 (Redacted but Casey remembered meeting Arpaio); October 31, 2012; Feb. 21, 2013; May 24, 2013.

Casey gave a simple explanation to Sheriff Arpaio about the court ordered injunction. It was "AOR" Arrest or Release." Casey had no indication that Arpaio did not understand the order.

Casey Cross by Wilenchik

The Cross Examination by Wilenchik of Casey at times became testy. It appeared that Wilenchik was trying to make the case that Casey had never informed Arpaio of the court ordered injunction. Wilenchek utilized three MCSO press releases from April and May of 2013, (Exhibit 36 J, K, L) to show that Arpaio, apparently after Casey allegedly told Arpaio about the court order, was still detaining illegal immigrants. The spin was that if Arpaio was still detaining illegals, he must not have been told by Casey about the injunction. Casey was not aware of the three MCSO press releases until today.

Wilenchik is a very aggressive attorney who constantly interrupts Judge Bolton. Hopefully, Judge Bolton will exercise a little more control in the coming days. Wilenchik is the most aggressive attorney that Arpaio has had to date, in my opinion.

I left during Casey's cross examination at 3:30pm. There were only 22 spectators on hand.

(Note: I combined two reports received into one for, hopefully, easier reading)

[Tesibria]

A couple news articles:
Megan Cassidy was there for AZ Central: Arpaio on trial: Did he understand the judge's order that went ignored? Megan's report is pretty detailed.

See also Sean Holstege, "Defense Subpoenas Jeff Session as First Day of Arpaio Trial Comes to a Close", Phoenix New Times (pretty brief recap of morning session).

[Reality Check]

Tes

Thanks for posting Brian Reilly's report and the links to the local articles. As usual Brian's report was helpful and very detailed. I found the defense arguments to be specious. They claimed Casey never explained the order to anyone and the order was unclear yet Arpaio knew it better than anyone and he wasn't violating it. How would that work? The defense said Arpaio was only following the law. The the court order was the law.

That kind of argument might have played to a jury but I doubt that it will work with Judge Bolton. I wonder if the government attorney will bring up the Seattle Operation? It was certainly featured in Judge Snow's contempt order.

[Notorial Dissent]

What the defense is doing is called grasping at straws, cause they ain't got nuthin' else. If you had the Shurf for a client that's what you'd have. He can't/won't tell the truth, it'd send him to jail for sure, and there is no reality where he did what he was supposed to have done.

The defense has also gone out of their way to throw Casey under the bus and then run over him repeatedly, and I hope Casey is smart enough to realize that is what they are doing, although that may be stretching it since he voluntarily worked for the Shurf knowing what he was doing. In the real world what the defense is claiming were true, he would be guilty of gross negligence and professional malpractice and it would/should cost him his license, in Phoenix who knows.

I can't imagine the defense's tactics are winning them any points with the judge or really doing anything for their case.

I do wonder if his current attorneys have an awareness of the Shurf's penchant for using and discarding attorneys like used kleenex?

[Sterngard Friegen]

Mark Goldman with his client.

[Reality Check]

The turnout for Arpaio was light. At 8:50 AM, there were 47 spectators. Nine of the spectators were members of the press. Arpaio's former campaign chairman, Chad Willem was present as well a the head of the NCPD, Jim Fotis. I overheard Willems wondering out loud, "Where is everybody?" He then commented, "I thought there would be more people." There were two people wearing Knights Of Columbus shirts who were in support of Arpaio, an elderly woman and a few others. A reporter who attended Joe's Birthday party told me that there was a sign that encouraged Joe's fans to attend court. His turnout was very poor. I was surprised.

I guess now that Ole Joe ain't Shurf no more they don't care about him. Even ex-Posseman Mike Zullo didn't show up.

[Notorial Dissent]

The turnout for Arpaio was light. At 8:50 AM, there were 47 spectators. Nine of the spectators were members of the press. Arpaio's former campaign chairman, Chad Willem was present as well a the head of the NCPD, Jim Fotis. I overheard Willems wondering out loud, "Where is everybody?" He then commented, "I thought there would be more people." There were two people wearing Knights Of Columbus shirts who were in support of Arpaio, an elderly woman and a few others. A reporter who attended Joe's Birthday party told me that there was a sign that encouraged Joe's fans to attend court. His turnout was very poor. I was surprised.

I guess now that Ole Joe ain't Shurf no more they don't care about him. Even ex-Posseman Mike Zullo didn't show up.

Probably afraid someone would slap him with a subpoena, although I doubt if he really cares either.