Pardon cases don’t generally change the legal record, they just override it. There’s always that asterisk — found guilty, but pardoned. The end effect is the same: an executive pardon removes all penalties from a conviction. But the record …
The problem is, Trump jumped the gun. In his eagerness to pardon Arpaio from a contempt of court conviction for willfully defying a federal court order to stop racial profiling by his deputies, Trump pardoned him before any sentence was pronounced (let alone served) and appeal process completed. That’s very rare for presidential pardons (not that Trump usually lets precedent guide his actions), but now Arapaio and his lawyer are upset that he can’t appeal the judgment, as planned, because it’s now moot — you can’t appeal if a pardon has removed any consequences.
Because of that, Arpaio has asked the court to get rid of the conviction because, well, it makes no difference, right?
“Because the President issued a pardon before sentencing and judgment — and clearly, before the conclusion of any appeals — the Court is obligated to vacate its verdict and all other orders in this matter, and to dismiss the case with prejudice,” Arpaio’s attorneys wrote in a filing. “Because Defendant will never have the benefit or opportunity to seek a reversal of the court’s verdict through appeal (and a retrial by jury), it is only fair that the Court vacate its verdict and all other rulings in the case.”
Except, clearly, it does make a difference to Arpaio, and it should make a difference to the law. Because the conviction is on the legal record, even if the consequences have been voided. And just because Trump offered (and Arpaio accepted) an early pardon before the appeals process could settle whether the conviction would stand doesn’t mean the process should be short-circuited. “Only fair” is both highly subjective and not a legal principle. Claiming that means that the conviction should be disappeared makes little sense; that was the last judicial action prior to the pardon, so it’s the next-to-last line line on the legal record.
In other words, if Arpaio was so sure his appeals would be successful, he should have stuck with the process. Too eagerly grabbing at a “Get Out of Jail Free” card should have consequences.
Arpaio should take his pardon and be grateful. Trump having the Justice Department jump on the retroactive exoneration wagon is not only unseemly (not that Trump’s ever caviled at that) but a bizarre twist on the judicial system that’s only necessary because of the President’s actions. Let Trump (and Arpaio) learn the lesson of being too eager to get your buddies off the hook.
Justice Dept. supports Arpaio’s post-pardon bid to have guilty finding thrown out
The move would largely have a symbolic effect.
What can anyone expect between free masons ?
Courts are contemptuous, hence the Pardon.
They aren't actually performing the job they take credit for accomplishing, like everyone else blaming others.
+John Gault Your logic is absent, hence your post.