Homeless in Arizona

Supreme Court flushes that silly 6th Amendment thing about a right of a "trial by jury" down the toilet with the 1970 decision "Baldwin v New York".

Sure Sheriff Joe is probably the biggest criminal the Arizona, if not the world, but he certainly deserves a trial by jury.

In this case the US Supreme Court said that you are NOT entitled to a trial by jury if the sentence for your crime is 6 months or less in jail.

I think there is also a dollar amount too, so if the fine are something like $5,000 or less you are not entitled by a trial by jury either.

I believe this is why almost ALL city and county laws have sentences of 6 months in jail or less. So the cities and counties can flush your right to a trial by jury down the toilet.

And when they do that a city or county judge is usually going to find you guilty of whatever the cops are accusing you of.

Source

Robb: Joe Arpaio still deserves a jury trial

Robert Robb , The Republic | azcentral.com 6:04 a.m. MT July 10, 2017

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is right about one thing: He should have received a jury trial on the charge of criminal contempt of court.

Federal Judge Murray Snow found that Arpaio unconstitutionally used race in traffic stops in an attempt to find illegal immigrants. The evidence was overwhelming and sickening to those with a true belief in the rule of law. So, no quarrel with Snow’s primary conclusion. Or with the conclusion of voters to throw Arpaio out on his ear as a consequence.

However, there were serious problems with Snow’s remedial order. It was ludicrously over prescriptive and costly to taxpayers. And it conflicted with federal law in a way relevant to the criminal contempt charges.

Where Judge Snow went wrong

In addition to dictating minutia about operations, Snow basically ordered Arpaio to get out of the immigration enforcement business altogether. No detentions or contacting the feds unless there were state crimes involved.

Arpaio, however, continued to refer illegal immigrants his officers encountered, principally to the Border Patrol. He apparently had a more cooperative relationship with the Border Patrol than with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the more logical referral for internal enforcement.

Snow found Arpaio in civil contempt for a variety of failures to faithfully implement his remedial order. But continuing to refer illegal immigrants not charged with state crimes to federal immigration authorities is the heart of the criminal charge.

Arpaio asked for a jury trial. Federal prosecutors opposed and the case is being decided solely by a federal judge. So far, Arpaio’s appeals have been unavailing.

The Constitution couldn't be plainer

The U.S. Constitution couldn’t be plainer on the subject. The Sixth Amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …”

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court found (Baldwin v. New York) that “all” didn’t really mean “all.” The court found a magical line hidden in the text. “All” actually meant criminal cases in which the potential penalty was more than six months incarceration. Six months or less in the hoosegow, no right to a jury trial.

Actually, only three of eight justices participating concluded that there was a magical six-month exception to the right to a jury trial. But because of the way the concurring and dissenting opinions split, the plurality six-month magical line became the controlling opinion, and remains so through to today.

And guess what? The maximum penalty Arpaio is facing is six months. He falls short of Baldwin’s magical line.

Arpaio won’t succeed in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to halt his criminal case on the grounds that he’s entitled to a jury trial. But, if convicted, I hope he appeals on that basis. Baldwin’s magical line needs to be re-examined, and this court might very well have a majority who understand what the word “all” actually means.

Should Arpaio be found guilty? Two thoughts on the matter.

There is no question that what Arpaio did violated Snow’s order that he get out of the immigration enforcement business. Arpaio has no excuse for not knowing that was what Snow ordered.

I didn’t sit in on the trial, so perhaps there was contravening evidence. Nevertheless, it seems abundantly obvious that Arpaio knowingly and willfully continued to call the feds in circumstances in which Snow had ordered him not to. And those are the elements of criminal contempt.

On the other hand, what Arpaio did is expressly authorized by federal law. Federal law protects the right of local law enforcement, among others, to send or receive information with the Immigration and Nationalization Service about the immigration status “of any individual.”

And to exchange “such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.” That would include the Border Patrol.

Should he hang for it? Let a jury decide

State law also requires local law enforcement to follow-up on suspicion of illegal presence when reasonable to do, a provision that so far has withstood legal challenge.

In other words, Snow’s remedial order forbade Arpaio from doing what is authorized under federal law and arguably required under state law. And that is the behavior that has him facing criminal charges.

Obviously, the right thing would have been for Arpaio to have appealed those parts of Snow’s remedial order and complied with them pending the outcome.

Arpaio put himself in this predicament. But a jury, not a judge, should decide whether he hangs for it.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.