Tweet
Arpaio civil-contempt hearing recap: Case of surprises
The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com
4/25/2015
Excerpt
Few knew what to expect when the Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's federal contempt-of-court hearing opened last week at the U.S. District Courthouse in downtown Phoenix.
Arpaio observers could have reasonably predicted that the six-term sheriff and seasoned deposition subject might be able to string together enough "I don't recall" responses to attorneys' pointed questions that he could avoid damaging himself with his testimony; and that attorneys working with the American Civil Liberties Union might be able to use the deputies and the boisterous sheriff's own words to prove that Arpaio intentionally violated U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow's order designed to eliminate racial profiling within the Sheriff's Office.
Both of those unfolded in the 2012 profiling trial that led to Snow's landmark ruling, and to a certain extent the trend unfolded again as the civil hearings got underway on Tuesday: Current and former sheriff's employees told Snow that Arpaio openly defied the court order and Arpaio's attorneys cast the employees as disgruntled and vengeful.
Snow serves as the lone finder of fact in the bench trial, which gives the judge great leeway to question witnesses — and provided some of the most compelling moments during the case.
Arpaio and his top aides had already admitted defying the order, so the only question before the hearings began was whether it was intentional.
But Friday's session ended without any conclusion and several more days of testimony will likely be required before Snow takes the case under advisement. The proceedings could start again as early as next month. But in the meantime, here's a recap of some of the most pivotal moments last week.
1. Deputy: Arpaio told me to defy order
What was said: A former commander in the sheriff's human-smuggling unit testified on Tuesday that he was told to phone Arpaio when sheriff's deputies stopped a group of undocumented immigrants after Snow's ruling effectively barred the agency from engaging in immigration enforcement. Sgt. Brett Palmer said federal agents couldn't or wouldn't take custody of the immigrants and that Arpaio ordered Palmer to detain the men. "I told the sheriff immediately that was an unlawful order and I was not going to follow it," Palmer said
MCSO's response: An attorney representing the Sheriff's Office attempted to rebut Palmer's testimony by pointing out that he didn't understand Snow's order for himself. The attorney also got Palmer to admit that he wasn't happy with his career at the Sheriff's Office, which raised the possibility that he was exacting some retribution through his testimony.
Why it's important: Arpaio telling a deputy to ignore Snow's order is the type of intentional defiance the plaintiffs are seeking to prove.
2. ACLU accused a top Arpaio aide of lying to a monitor
What was said: Friday's testimony brought Arpaio's chief deputy, Jerry Sheridan, to the stand where an ACLU attorney questioned Sheridan's honesty. Snow appointed a monitor, Robert Warshaw, to ensure that the Sheriff's Office complied with Snow's order. When a deputy was found to have collected licenses and other items from immigrants, and recorded some of the stops, Warshaw asked for those recordings and others to be collected discreetly. Sheridan instead ordered an e-mail blast be sent to sheriff's commanders in an effort to retrieve the recordings. The plaintiffs' attorney said Sheridan intentionally lied to Warshaw about sending out the e-mail blast to cover his tracks.
MCSO's response: "First of all, be careful about calling me a liar. I wasn't aware that he sent that e-mail out," Sheridan said.
Although Sheridan didn't deny the judge's order was violated, he testified Friday that he still believes the e-mail was the most efficient way to go about the collection. "How could we prevent anyone if they had the … desire to destroy a video?" he said. "The only way we could come up with that is if we served 700 search warrants all at once, and I don't think that would even work."
Why it's important: The videos signaled that the Sheriff's Office had not turned over all evidence that was required during the discovery phase of the racial-profiling case. Although this revelation did not come to light until one year after Snow issued his May 2013 ruling that the Sheriff's Office had racially profiled Latinos, he ordered officials to quietly collect all on-duty recordings from their deputies.
3. Arpaio apologizes to Snow
What was said: Arpaio was engaged in a lengthy question-and-answer session with a plaintiffs' attorney on Thursday morning during which attorney Stanley Young used press releases, interviews and previous depositions to establish a foundation that the lure of political popularity and campaign funds drove Arpaio to continue conducting immigration operations after Snow had prohibited it. The clips included an Arpaio mantra ("nothing changes") and another in which he said "It's amazing ... what I can get away with."
Then Arpaio did something out of character: He turned to Snow and personally apologized.
"I've been a top federal official for 22 years. I have a deep respect for the courts, federal courts and federal judges," he said. "I didn't know all the facts of this court order, and it really hurts me that after 55 years … to be in this position. So I want to apologize to the judge that I should have known more. This court order slipped through the cracks."
Why it's important: It was an admission of guilt, which Arpaio and several aides have already done, but for a politician whose popularity has been rooted, in part, in his defiant persona, it was startling for some to see the sheriff apparently humbled. Whether it will be enough to get Snow to believe that the order defying was accidental remains to be seen.
...................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ecap/26402545/
The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com
4/25/2015
Excerpt
Few knew what to expect when the Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's federal contempt-of-court hearing opened last week at the U.S. District Courthouse in downtown Phoenix.
Arpaio observers could have reasonably predicted that the six-term sheriff and seasoned deposition subject might be able to string together enough "I don't recall" responses to attorneys' pointed questions that he could avoid damaging himself with his testimony; and that attorneys working with the American Civil Liberties Union might be able to use the deputies and the boisterous sheriff's own words to prove that Arpaio intentionally violated U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow's order designed to eliminate racial profiling within the Sheriff's Office.
Both of those unfolded in the 2012 profiling trial that led to Snow's landmark ruling, and to a certain extent the trend unfolded again as the civil hearings got underway on Tuesday: Current and former sheriff's employees told Snow that Arpaio openly defied the court order and Arpaio's attorneys cast the employees as disgruntled and vengeful.
Snow serves as the lone finder of fact in the bench trial, which gives the judge great leeway to question witnesses — and provided some of the most compelling moments during the case.
Arpaio and his top aides had already admitted defying the order, so the only question before the hearings began was whether it was intentional.
But Friday's session ended without any conclusion and several more days of testimony will likely be required before Snow takes the case under advisement. The proceedings could start again as early as next month. But in the meantime, here's a recap of some of the most pivotal moments last week.
1. Deputy: Arpaio told me to defy order
What was said: A former commander in the sheriff's human-smuggling unit testified on Tuesday that he was told to phone Arpaio when sheriff's deputies stopped a group of undocumented immigrants after Snow's ruling effectively barred the agency from engaging in immigration enforcement. Sgt. Brett Palmer said federal agents couldn't or wouldn't take custody of the immigrants and that Arpaio ordered Palmer to detain the men. "I told the sheriff immediately that was an unlawful order and I was not going to follow it," Palmer said
MCSO's response: An attorney representing the Sheriff's Office attempted to rebut Palmer's testimony by pointing out that he didn't understand Snow's order for himself. The attorney also got Palmer to admit that he wasn't happy with his career at the Sheriff's Office, which raised the possibility that he was exacting some retribution through his testimony.
Why it's important: Arpaio telling a deputy to ignore Snow's order is the type of intentional defiance the plaintiffs are seeking to prove.
2. ACLU accused a top Arpaio aide of lying to a monitor
What was said: Friday's testimony brought Arpaio's chief deputy, Jerry Sheridan, to the stand where an ACLU attorney questioned Sheridan's honesty. Snow appointed a monitor, Robert Warshaw, to ensure that the Sheriff's Office complied with Snow's order. When a deputy was found to have collected licenses and other items from immigrants, and recorded some of the stops, Warshaw asked for those recordings and others to be collected discreetly. Sheridan instead ordered an e-mail blast be sent to sheriff's commanders in an effort to retrieve the recordings. The plaintiffs' attorney said Sheridan intentionally lied to Warshaw about sending out the e-mail blast to cover his tracks.
MCSO's response: "First of all, be careful about calling me a liar. I wasn't aware that he sent that e-mail out," Sheridan said.
Although Sheridan didn't deny the judge's order was violated, he testified Friday that he still believes the e-mail was the most efficient way to go about the collection. "How could we prevent anyone if they had the … desire to destroy a video?" he said. "The only way we could come up with that is if we served 700 search warrants all at once, and I don't think that would even work."
Why it's important: The videos signaled that the Sheriff's Office had not turned over all evidence that was required during the discovery phase of the racial-profiling case. Although this revelation did not come to light until one year after Snow issued his May 2013 ruling that the Sheriff's Office had racially profiled Latinos, he ordered officials to quietly collect all on-duty recordings from their deputies.
3. Arpaio apologizes to Snow
What was said: Arpaio was engaged in a lengthy question-and-answer session with a plaintiffs' attorney on Thursday morning during which attorney Stanley Young used press releases, interviews and previous depositions to establish a foundation that the lure of political popularity and campaign funds drove Arpaio to continue conducting immigration operations after Snow had prohibited it. The clips included an Arpaio mantra ("nothing changes") and another in which he said "It's amazing ... what I can get away with."
Then Arpaio did something out of character: He turned to Snow and personally apologized.
"I've been a top federal official for 22 years. I have a deep respect for the courts, federal courts and federal judges," he said. "I didn't know all the facts of this court order, and it really hurts me that after 55 years … to be in this position. So I want to apologize to the judge that I should have known more. This court order slipped through the cracks."
Why it's important: It was an admission of guilt, which Arpaio and several aides have already done, but for a politician whose popularity has been rooted, in part, in his defiant persona, it was startling for some to see the sheriff apparently humbled. Whether it will be enough to get Snow to believe that the order defying was accidental remains to be seen.
...................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ecap/26402545/