You are on page 1of 4

Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 110 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 4

1 RAYMOND N. HULSER
Chief
2 Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
3
JOHN D. KELLER
4 Illinois State Bar No. 6293104
VICTOR R. SALGADO
5 DC Bar No. 975013
SIMON J. CATALDO
6 Massachusetts Bar 690879
Trial Attorneys
7 Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
8 1400 New York Ave, NW, 12th floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
9 Tel: (202) 514-1412
John.Keller2@usdoj.gov
10 Victor.Salgado@usdoj.gov
Simon.Cataldo@usdoj.gov
11
12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
14 United States of America,
No. CR-16-01012-PHX-SRB
15 Plaintiff,
Government’s Response to Defendant’s
16 v. Motion to Stay Proceedings
17
Joseph M. Arpaio,
18
Defendant.
19
20 The defendant requests that this Court take the unprecedented step of staying his

21 criminal trial pending resolution of an appeal in a civil case to which he is no longer a party

22 and in which the requested relief has no bearing on this criminal proceeding. ECF No. 106

23 (Def.’s Mot. to Stay). Defendant also conflates Judge Snow’s finding of civil contempt,

24 which is challenged in the appeal, with his own admissions of facts underlying the

25 contempt finding. While the defendant’s admissions are relevant in this case, the contempt

26 finding itself is irrelevant and need not be resolved on appeal for this case to proceed.

27 Simply put, the cited appeal provides no basis whatsoever for staying these proceedings.

28 The request for a stay should be denied.
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 110 Filed 03/29/17 Page 2 of 4

1 As an initial matter, the appeal cited by the defendant was filed in the Ninth Circuit
2 on December 27, 2016, four days prior to the end of the defendant’s term as sheriff. See
3 Melendres v. Arpaio, No. 16-16663, ECF No. 11 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2016). Newly-elected
4 Sheriff of Maricopa County Paul Penzone thereafter replaced the defendant as the named
5 party in the appeal. See id. ECF No. 25 (“Appellant Joseph M. Arpaio . . . substituted by
6 Appellant Paul Penzone.”). The defendant is no longer the Sheriff of Maricopa County
7 and possesses no interest in the Melendres case, in district court or on appeal, that would
8 justify staying his criminal trial.1 Further, Sheriff Penzone has explicitly declined to “assert
9 or pursue any portion of the Motion for Recusal” previously filed by the defendant in
10 district court in which the defendant alleged the same bases for recusal that are raised as
11 part of his appeal. Melendres v. Penzone, No. 2:07-cv-02513 (D. Ariz. 2007), Notice, ECF
12 No. 1977. Thus, the appeal may well be moot. Moreover, the appeal—which centers
13 around the latest of the defendant’s many requests for Judge Snow’s recusal—asks the
14 Ninth Circuit to vacate Judge Snow’s 2016 contempt findings and civil contempt order in
15 Melendres. See Melendres v. Arpaio, No. 16-16663. ECF No. 11 at 59 (9th Cir. Dec. 27,
16 2016). Those rulings are not at issue in the instant criminal matter, which arises from the
17 defendant’s violations of the December 23, 2011, preliminary injunction.
18 The defendant also asks this court to apply the wrong standard for evaluating his
19 request for a stay, citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 438 (2009) for the standard applied
20 when a stay is requested pending an appeal taken in the same case. Mot. to Stay at 2, ECF
21 No. 106. Not only are this case and Melendres entirely separate proceedings, but as noted
22 above, the relief at issue in the Melendres appeal has no bearing on this criminal matter.
23 Regardless, under any standard, a stay is not warranted here. The defendant cites no case—
24
25
26 1
Judge Snow has ordered the defendant to address why he has any standing to
27 persist in his motion for Judge Snow’s recusal. See Melendres, ECF No. 1987 (Brief
Regarding the Standing of Former Sheriff Arpaio, Former Chief Deputy Sheridan, and
28 Lieutenant Sousa).
-2-
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 110 Filed 03/29/17 Page 3 of 4

1 and the government is aware of none—in which a criminal trial has been stayed pending
2 resolution of a civil appeal, let alone a civil appeal to which the criminal defendant is not
3 a party. And while a “District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident
4 to its power to control its own docket,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997), the
5 defendant has offered no cogent basis for an exercise of such discretion.
6 The defendant argues that if the Ninth Circuit vacates Judge Snow’s 2016 civil
7 contempt orders, “the government would have to prove three elements of criminal
8 contempt instead of just one.” United States v. Arpaio, No. 2:16-cr-01012 (D. Ariz. 2016)
9 Mot. to Stay at 5, ECF No. 106. The defendant is wrong. The government will need to
10 establish beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the December 23, 2011, preliminary
11 injunction was a clear and definite order, (2) the defendant knew of the order, and (3) that
12 he willfully disobeyed it. Chapman v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 614 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.
13 1979). Though the defendant’s admissions of relevant facts in the Melendres litigation
14 may provide evidence of his guilt, the civil contempt finding itself is not evidence of
15 anything and the outcome on appeal will have no effect on this case.
16 The defendant also contends that a stay is warranted because “Judge Snow’s
17 appearance of impropriety . . . must be resolved [by the Ninth Circuit] before Mr. Arpaio
18 should be called to answer for criminal contempt.” Mot. to Stay at 6, ECF No. 106. This
19 claim is equally baseless. The straightforward question to be determined in this case—
20 whether the defendant willfully disobeyed a clear and definite court order—does not
21 depend in any way on Judge Snow’s motives or the defendant’s repeated, and as yet
22 unsubstantiated, allegations of impropriety.
23 For the foregoing reasons, the motion to stay should be denied without “expedited
24 oral argument.”
25
26 Respectfully Submitted,

27 RAYMOND N. HULSER
Chief, Public Integrity Section
28
-3-
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 110 Filed 03/29/17 Page 4 of 4

1
By: /s/ John D. Keller
2 John D. Keller
Victor R. Salgado
3
Simon J. Cataldo
4 Trial Attorneys
5
United States Department of Justice
6 Public Integrity Section
1400 New York Ave. NW
7 Washington, DC 20005
8 (202) 514-1412
John.Keller2@usdoj.gov
9 Victor.Salgado@usdoj.gov
10 Simon.Cataldo@usdoj.gov

11
12
13
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
15
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
16
foregoing via the CM/ECF system which will automatically provide notice to counsel of
17 record for the defendant.
18
/s/ John D. Keller
19 John D. Keller
Trial Attorney
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-