contempt of court for arpaio?

Mott the Hoople said:
The officer involved was ordered to apologize by the court. Sherif Arapio refused to allow said officer to apologize. That means Sheriff Arapio is in contempt of court.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Did Arpaio restrain the Officer??
Was he held in a jail and denied the opportunity to go??

This is Arpaio's OPINION.
If the Officer chooses not to do as the Court has ordered; then the Officer has made the choice to ignore the Court order, not Arpaio.

The Court hasn't order Arpaio to do anything.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
That is for the judge to decide. A bailiff has no such power. It has never been a bailiffs responsibility to either point out to a judge/jury that a witness is lying UNLESS SAID BAILIFF IS ON THE STAND.
Click to expand...

???...so, we should have no police officers on the street to find people breaking the law and arrest them?......it's the judge's job?......again, your assumption is the bailiff's actions had something to do with the witness on the stand.....you apparently haven't listened to the video.....nobody was testifying, it was a sentencing hearing.....the attorney was talking about the sentencing recommendation for a person who had already been convicted.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...so, we should have no police officers on the street to find people breaking the law and arrest them?......it's the judge's job?......again, your assumption is the bailiff's actions had something to do with the witness on the stand.....you apparently haven't listened to the video.....nobody was testifying, it was a sentencing hearing.....the attorney was talking about the sentencing recommendation for a person who had already been convicted.....
Click to expand...

strawman. the court room is different than the street.

IN the courtroom, the bailiff maintains order. Also, in debating during a sentencing hearing, what possible law could be broken so as to be enforcable by a sheriffs deputy rifling through a lawyers file?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
strawman. the court room is different than the street.

IN the courtroom, the bailiff maintains order. Also, in debating during a sentencing hearing, what possible law could be broken so as to be enforcable by a sheriffs deputy rifling through a lawyers file?
Click to expand...

an intentional misrepresentation of fact to a judge on the record by an attorney would subject the attorney to possible disbarment......if the bailiff had heard the lawyer state one thing to her client prior to the hearing, then heard the lawyer state the opposite in open court it would be his responsibility to bring that to the court's attention.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
an intentional misrepresentation of fact to a judge on the record by an attorney would subject the attorney to possible disbarment......if the bailiff had heard the lawyer state one thing to her client prior to the hearing, then heard the lawyer state the opposite in open court it would be his responsibility to bring that to the court's attention.....
Click to expand...

negative. totally false. It is not the bailiffs responsibility to oversee court procedures and law. that is solely the judges responsibility. You're making excuses for the bailiffs misconduct, making you (so far) a police apologist.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...so, we should have no police officers on the street to find people breaking the law and arrest them?......it's the judge's job?......again, your assumption is the bailiff's actions had something to do with the witness on the stand.....you apparently haven't listened to the video.....nobody was testifying, it was a sentencing hearing.....the attorney was talking about the sentencing recommendation for a person who had already been convicted.....
Click to expand...


If the deputy had concerns about the contents of the paper he can inform the judge, who can view the paper and determine the validity of the deputy's concerns. It is about procedure.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
an intentional misrepresentation of fact to a judge on the record by an attorney would subject the attorney to possible disbarment......if the bailiff had heard the lawyer state one thing to her client prior to the hearing, then heard the lawyer state the opposite in open court it would be his responsibility to bring that to the court's attention.....
Click to expand...

By voicing his concerns to the proper authorities...NOT by opening an attorney's private file and removing documents protected by attorney/client priveledge.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
strawman. the court room is different than the street.

IN the courtroom, the bailiff maintains order. Also, in debating during a sentencing hearing, what possible law could be broken so as to be enforcable by a sheriffs deputy rifling through a lawyers file?
Click to expand...
Hmmm PiMP used a strawman argument instead of a circular argument? I'm impressed! :)
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Yurt, even lawyers for the defense are considered to be "officers of the court".....there are things a defense lawyer can do which are a violation of that office and which are crimes....the bailiff is not a representative of the prosecution, the bailiff has the responsibility to investigate crimes that occur or are occurring in the the courtroom......if he heard something that gave him cause to walk over to her desk (for example hearing her make a statement which was obviously a lie when compared to something he had heard her refer to from her notes out of the judge's presence) and look at a document that he could obviously read without opening any files (he stood there doing so) that could extend to being able to seize evidence of such a crime.....intentionally misleading the court is grounds for removal......
Click to expand...
You have now joined the ranks of Conservatard. Bow to your king SM. EVERYTHING IN THAT FILE is covered by Client Attorney Privilege. The officer is NOT an officer of the Court and is INDEED an arm of the Prosecution. He is the investigative arm of the DA. No one has a right to rifle through her file without a warrant you DUMB FUCK. I can't believe the lack of knowledge in here on Court proceedings and constitutional law. Too many of you in here are willing to allow the police unmitigated access to whatever they feel they need without following the basic rules of our democracy. A Pox on your house.
 
And he is NOT a bailiff. He is a Sheriff's Deputy that is acting as a guard in court. Baliffs in both Arizona and NM are civilians.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Yurt, even lawyers for the defense are considered to be "officers of the court".....there are things a defense lawyer can do which are a violation of that office and which are crimes....the bailiff is not a representative of the prosecution, the bailiff has the responsibility to investigate crimes that occur or are occurring in the the courtroom......if he heard something that gave him cause to walk over to her desk (for example hearing her make a statement which was obviously a lie when compared to something he had heard her refer to from her notes out of the judge's presence) and look at a document that he could obviously read without opening any files (he stood there doing so) that could extend to being able to seize evidence of such a crime.....intentionally misleading the court is grounds for removal......
Click to expand...

you didn't actually answer my question, instead you went off about a totally irrelevent point about "even" defense lawyers are officers of the court.....psssssssst....all lawyers are officers of the court

it doesn't negate the officer opening her file and taking the paper...this is absolutely a 4th amendment violation, a violation of attorney-client privilege etc....the facts as they appear on the video do not warrant a search without a proper warrant, if he had concerns, he should have mentioned them to the judge.....i can't believe you, as an officer of the court, support a police officers ability to simply open up attorney files (even if open same point) and read and then take their work product....especially a criminal defense attorney....

i can only imagine if the officer had done this to the DA....
 
Ok, lets say that I represent Criminal A on several burglary charges. In the course of my investigation, I interview a person who can positively put my client at the scene of one of the crimes. Lets then say that I am stupid enough to memorialize this interview with a writing and I place it in my File. Do I have an obligation to turn this information over to the Prosecution if they don't know about this witness? Lets say that a sheriff's deputy knocks my file off counsel table by accident and when he picks it up he looks through it. Has he violated my clients rights? Can he come up and just look through my file on counsel table? If my file is out of my brief case and on the table is it fair game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top