Arpaio asks the Supreme Court to block a special prosecutor in a contempt dispute

Uncategorized



[ad_1]





Joe Arpaio "title =" Joe Arpaio "/> </source></source></source></source></picture> </div><figcaption> <p> The lawyers of the former Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, said the court of appeal had gone too far in naming a special prosecutor instead of letting him or other litigants make their case Photo: Matt York, File / AP </p> </figcaption></figure> <div class=

by JOSH GERSTEIN

Arpaio's lawyers filed a motion Wednesday before the judges [9[19659007TheCourtofAppealactedunconstitutionallywhenitstatedthataspecialprosecutorshouldbeappointedtorDefendthedecisionofacourtoflawlimitingtheeffectsofTrump'sdecisiontopardonArpaioinacontemptcaseincourt

659008] A 9 e circuit jury ruled last April that the appointment of a special prosecutor was appropriate because the Department of Justice had expressed its disagreement with the decision of the US District Court Judge Susan Bolton Says Trump's Forgiveness Endes Criminal Procedure and Eliminates Risk

Arpaio's 86-year-old lawyers accused Arpaio of defying the court's decisions. Another judge in a trial for racial profiling.

away by naming former Attorney Christopher Caldwell to act as a special attorney instead of simply allowing him or others to present legal arguments as court friends.

"The court can not dismiss prosecutors because it does not like their position, especially in the following cases: Their position is that the court erred," said the lawyer of 39, Arpaio, Jack Wilenchik, and other lawyers in the new record of the Supreme Court. "Remove the attorneys from the case because they intend to argue that the court wrongly feels the worst kind of" tyrannical license "."

The decision to appoint a special prosecutor in connection with the arcanic arduous battle of Arpaio sparked considerable debate among the judges of 9 th circuit. Last April, a judge dissented from the decision, while four others recorded their opinion last October, when the court announced that it would not have before it an enlarged panel of 11 judges.

The October dissent, written by Judge Consuelo Callahan, basically appealed to the Supreme Court to intervene – a fact that Arpaio's memoir clearly mentions.

"The confusion of the majority between the regular appointment of amici and the extraordinary act of appointing a special prosecutor not only infringes the separation of powers, is also sloppy, creates a bad law and invites the court Supreme to backtrack, "warned Callahan, appointed by President George W. Bush.

Despite Callahan's invitation, Solicitor General Noel Francisco had decided not to ask the judges to consider the problem. that the Trump administration had let pass the opportunity to seize the judges, POLITICO reported that the lawyers of Arpaio had announced their intention to do it.

The lawyer designated as public prosecutor Special in the call did not respond immediately to a request for comment on Wednesday.

[ad_2]
Source link

Powered by https://naaju.com/ukraine | Designed by Naaju
© Copyright 2024, All Rights Reserved