[ad_1]
The Department of Justice decided not to ask the Supreme Court to block the appointment of a special advisor The prosecutor opposes the efforts of former Arizona sheriff, Joe Arpaio, to erase the verdict of guilt that one judge made against him for contempt of court last year.
However, an Arpaio lawyer said Wednesday evening that the legal team of the ex-sheriff was preparing a new trial, his own request to the High Court, despite the decision of the Trump not to respond to the question of the power of judges to appoint special councils without the express permission of Congress.
The Story Continues
President Donald Trump Pard Arpaio was awaiting sentence a few weeks after the verdict, claiming that the long-time immigration rights defender had challenged a court decision in the context of a prosecution for Latinos profiling.
Forgiveness seems to have eliminated any possibility that the 86-year-old might go to jail or be fined for the charge of contempt of court, but Arpaio's lawyers persisted in require that the guilty verdict is also formally set aside.
US District Court Judge Susan Bolton dismissed this claim, finding that Grace only excused Arpaio from the consequences of her disregard for a court decision in a case of racial profiling of Latinos, but did not was not a ground for annulling all decisions rendered. fight for contempt of court, such as the conviction of the ex-sheriff.
The decision announced Wednesday not to bring the case for contempt of the Supreme Court, at least for the moment, stems from the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to defend the decision of Bolton when Arpaio did call. In addition to government objections, a panel of the 9 e Circuit Court of Appeal decided, April 2-1, to appoint a special prosecutor to argue that Bolton's decision was correct.
9 e circuit judges objected to the special prosecutor. Justice Richard Tallman dissociated himself from the decision of the committee. Then a non-designated circuit judge e requested that the matter be reconsidered by a high court, consisting of 11 judges. The judges of the Western Court of Appeal eventually voted against, but five serving or high-ranking judges expressed their disapproval of the appointment of the special prosecutor.
In an opinion released last October, Judge Consuelo Callahan led the charge against the move. court action found constitutionally suspect and unnecessary. She said that the court should simply have allowed outside counsel already authorized to act as friends of the court to defend Bolton's decision without anyone being officially put in the prosecutor's shoes.
"The majority confused the current appointment of amici with the extraordinary act. to appoint a special prosecutor not only violates the separation of powers, but is also sloppy, creates a bad law and invites the Supreme Court to reconsider its decisions, "warned Callahan.
The Trump administration apparently apparently Reflected on Callahan's suggestion that he discontinue any proceedings on appeal while Solicitor General Noel Francisco and other officials were wondering whether to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. [19659017] Chief Justice John Roberts ” data-size=”promo_xsmall_rectangle”/>
However, the suspense surrounding this decision came to an end on Wednesday, when the Department of Justice lawyers notified the 9 th tour that Francisco had decided the day the New Year that the government p his chance to bring the case before the judges.
But Arpaio's lawyer, Jack Wilenchik, told POLITICO that the lawyers of the "Former Sheriff had the intention to ask the Supreme Court to intervene, regardless of the position of the Department of Justice.
court, replaced by a judge, while apparently the court does not like what the prosecutor does in there, "Wilenchik said. "This has far-reaching implications."
The Court of Appeals had previously appointed Christopher Caldwell, a former counsel for the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, as special prosecutor in this case. The new opinion of the Ministry of Justice asked the court of appeal to set a briefing schedule in the case.
However, Wilenchik indicated that he would probably ask the 9 e circuit to suspend the case pending the decision of the Supreme Court. petition.
No explanation for the decision of the Department of Justice was given in the file filed Wednesday. A department spokeswoman declined to comment on this story.
