“PARDON ME”

Only a few days ago, President Trump (AKA @realDonaldTrump) publicly issued a pardon to the totally unrepentant Ex-sheriff Arpaio while a massive, category 4 hurricane hurdled destruction across the gulf coast. No one doubts that it was a purely political pardon, since Arpaio, while convicted, had yet to be sentenced and had certainly not begun an appeal. So, he’s off the hook? I guess Trump, once more, never read the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Evidence. In order for Arpaio to accept the pardon, he had to admit to the crime; the pardon doesn’t wipe out the conviction.

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, but it didn’t stop the ensuing civil lawsuit from destroying him, and neither will Trump’s pardon stop the same thing from happening to Arpaio. Can a criminal conviction be used against someone in a civil lawsuit if they’ve received a pardon? Listen to the words of Federal Rule of Evidence 609(c):

Effect of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if:

(1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or

(2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.

 I have no doubt that Arpaio will be the subject of many lawsuits by his victims and since he has been clearly unrepentant, there is also clearly no evidence of rehabilitation. Hence, while he may not go to jail (at least for this crime), his conviction may serve as prima fascia evidence in a civil lawsuit. It’s up to the particular judge whether to admit the evidence, of course, but I believe there is a very good likelihood it will be allowed.