You are on page 1of 2

Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 148 Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
5
6 United States of America, No. CR-16-01012-001-PHX-SRB
7 Plaintiff, ORDER
8 v.
9 Joseph M. Arpaio,
10 Defendant.
11
12 At issue is Defendant Arpaios Motion to Prohibit the Introduction of
13 Constitutionally Protected Campaign Statements (Mot.) (Doc. 104).
14 The facts of this case have been summarized in a previous Order that is fully
15 incorporated herein. (See Doc. 36, Oct. 25, 2016 Order at 1-4.) Defendant moves to
16 prohibit the introduction of any public statements made by [him] during his reelection
17 campaign November 2007 to November 2008, November 2011 to November 2012, and
18 November 2015 to November 2016. (Mot. at 1.) Defendant argues that the statements are
19 not probative of his state of mind or willfulness, are protected by the First and Fifth
20 Amendments, and are more prejudicial than probative. (Id. at 1-7.) The Government
21 argues that Defendants statements are admissible against him, are not protected by the
22 First and Fifth Amendments, and are more probative than prejudicial. (Doc. 108, Resp. in
23 Oppn to Mot. at 1-4.)
24 While Defendant offered a detailed explanation for the policies behind the First
25 and Fifth Amendments, Defendant has not offered any legal authority for the proposition
26 that political speech cannot be used against a defendant in criminal proceedings.
27 Defendant attempts to draw distinctions with the cases cited by the Government for the
28 proposition that political speech is admissible as evidence of a defendants state of mind,
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 148 Filed 05/31/17 Page 2 of 2

1 but does not offer a single case stating that political speech cannot be used. Wisconsin v.
2 Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 489 (1993) (The First Amendment, moreover, does not prohibit
3 the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or
4 intent. Evidence of a defendants previous declarations or statements is commonly
5 admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability,
6 and the like.). Defendant has failed to demonstrate how the First Amendment precludes
7 the admission of his statements other than stating it would have a chilling effect on his
8 further statements. (Mot. at 4-5.) Defendant has also failed to demonstrate that the Fifth
9 Amendment would be implicated as there is no argument that Defendants statements
10 were somehow forced. Defendant knowingly made the statements to garner votes. (Id.
11 at 7.) The Constitution does not prohibit Defendants campaign statements as evidence.
12 Defendants arguments about forcing Defendant to waive his rights and the
13 chilling effect on campaign/political speech in contravention of the Supreme Courts
14 purported goals has no basis in law or fact. (Mot at 1-4.) As noted above, Defendant was
15 in no way forced to make any of his political statements. Defendant made his statements
16 to garner votes. Defendants position that those statements should not be believed
17 because it would be nave for anyone to truly believe that any politician will actually do
18 [what] he says he will is an argument going to the weight not the admissibility of his
19 statements. (Id. at 6-7); Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631, 642 (1947) (noting that the
20 weight of explicit statements regarding intent is for a factfinder to decide). Defendant will
21 have an opportunity at trial to argue what the statements were intended to convey and his
22 state of mind at the time of his alleged contumacious conduct.
23 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Arpaios Motion to Prohibit the
24 Introduction of Constitutionally Protected Campaign Statements (Doc. 104).
25 Dated this 31st day of May, 2017.
26
27
28

-2-