Lawyers in Joe Arpaio's criminal contempt-of-court case are set to give oral arguments on Oct. 4 regarding the former Arizona sheriff's request to vacate his conviction in light of President Donald Trump's pardon.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled Arpaio's October sentencing hearing and asked Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday to file briefs explaining why the ex-sheriff's conviction should or shouldn't be vacated, The Arizona Republic reported.
Prior to the president's pardon, Arpaio was scheduled to be sentenced for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction on Oct. 5.
The issue is that a pardon suggests an admission of guilt, which Bolton said needs to be discussed during oral arguments.
"We look forward to the hearing, and hope that the court will make the appropriate ruling," said Mark Goldman, one of Arpaio's attorneys, according to The Arizona Republic. "The verdict should have been set aside by the court already and prior to the pardon for the reason that it was never delivered to Sheriff Arpaio in open court, but instead sent to his attorneys via email, thus violating his constitutional rights to a public trial and to participate in his trial."
Arpaio was convicted in July of criminal contempt for ignoring a judge's order to stop detaining people based only the the suspicion that they were illegal immigrants, The Washington Post noted.
A pardon doesn't remove a conviction from a person's criminal record, and Jack Wilenchik, an attorney for Arpaio, said vacating the conviction is important to clear Arpaio's name, the Post noted.
Goldman criticized the media, saying reports have mischaracterized his conviction, The Arizona Republic reported.
"It was extremely hurtful and upsetting to him that it was being reported that he was convicted of racial profiling," Golman said. "The sheriff is not a racist and has never been a racist, and any type of such accusation was upsetting and extremely distressing to him."
Goldman said he's not sure if the court will throw out Arpaio's conviction, but "if they don’t, we’ll be appealing."