Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 125 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 4

1 Mark D. Goldman (012156)


Jeff S. Surdakowski (030988)
2
GOLDMAN & ZWILLINGER PLLC
3 17851 North 85th Street, Suite 175
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
4
Main: (480) 626-8483
5 Facsimile: (480) 502-7500
E-mail: docket@gzlawoffice.com
6
Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
United States of America, Case No.: 2:16-cr-01012-SRB-1
11
Plaintiff,
12
DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
13 v. MOTION TO PROHIBIT INTRODUCTION
OF PROTECTED CAMPAIGN
14
Joseph M. Arpaio, STATEMENTS
15
Defendant.
16
(Expedited Oral Argument Requested)
17
18
Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (Mr. Arpaio or Defendant) hereby replies to the
19
20 Governments Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Exclude Statements that He
21 Made to the Media. Ultimately, the Plaintiff cites irrelevant case law and Mr. Arpaio reasserts
22
his motion for an order prohibiting the introduction of his campaign-related statements at trial.
23
24 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
25 The Government cites to Wisconsin v. Mitchell to support the proposition that Mr.
26
Arpaios campaign-related statements are admissible against him. 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
27
28 Mitchell was about a state statute that enhanced sentences for convicts if their crimes were

1
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 125 Filed 04/05/17 Page 2 of 4

1 racially motivated. While the Government may have already convicted Mr. Arpaio in its
2
mind, this case has yet to go to trial and we are not in a sentencing phase. Additionally, the
3
defendant in Mitchell was a private citizen, not a political candidate on the campaign trail
4
5 communicating with the public about his political positions. Mitchell is irrelevant to the
6
immediate case and does nothing to undercut or refute the cases Mr. Arpaio cited in his initial
7
motion to bar the admission of protected campaign speech at trial.
8
9 The Government provided this Court with an incorrect citation to Haupt v. United
10
States to support the position that political speech is admissible in a criminal case to prove any
11
relevant fact.1 330 U.S. 631, 67 S. Ct. 874, 91 L. Ed. 1145 (1947). Haupt is also irrelevant to
12
13 the immediate case in that the Haupt case was about the treason of a private individual, not a
14
candidate for political office on the campaign trail making statements to the public about his
15
political positions. Again, the case the Government cites does nothing to undercut the
16
17 authority of the cases cited by Mr. Arpaio.
18
The Government also cites to United States v. Barnett in support of the proposition that
19
political speech may be admitted in a criminal case to prove any relevant fact. 667 F.2d 835,
20
21 844 (9th Cir. 1982). The Barnett case has absolutely nothing to do with political speech or
22
campaign statements whatsoever, and again, is irrelevant to the immediate case. Barnett dealt
23
with the sale of printed directions for the creation of the drug phencyclidine, commonly known
24
25 as PCP or angel dust.
26
27
1
The Government incorrectly cited Haupt v. United States as 330 U.S. 874, 879 (1947). The
28 proper citation is in the sentence following this footnote in the body of this filing.

2
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 125 Filed 04/05/17 Page 3 of 4

1 When arguing that Mr. Arpaios campaign speech is admissible under Federal Rule of
2
Evidence 403, the Government makes no attempt to address the protections afforded political
3
speech and merely asserts that the statements are probative in value.
4
5 CONCLUSION
6
The Government made no argument whatsoever that using Mr. Arpaios protected
7
campaign speech against him would not violate Mr. Arpaios Fifth Amendment rights. The
8
9 Government has cited no relevant case law that refutes the cases Mr. Arpaio cited in his
10
motion for an order barring the admission of Mr. Arpaios campaign statements. Essentially,
11
the government submitted an opinion piece without any legal support. The Government made
12
13 no legal argument regarding the inadmissibility of Mr. Arpaios protected campaign speech
14
other than to assert that the statements are probative. For the foregoing reasons, and the
15
reasons stated in Mr. Arpaios initial motion on this issue, incorporated herein by reference,
16
17 this Court should issue an order prohibiting the Government from introducing any of Mr.
18
Arpaios campaign statements at trial.
19
20
DATED this 5th day of April, 2017.
21
GOLDMAN & ZWILLINGER PLLC
22
23 /s/ Mark D. Goldman
Mark D. Goldman
24
Jeff S. Surdakowski
25 17851 North 85th Street, Suite 175
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
26
Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio
27
28

3
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 125 Filed 04/05/17 Page 4 of 4

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of April, 2017, I electronically transmitted the
3 foregoing Reply to the Clerk of Court through the CM/ECF System which will send a Notice
of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF registrants for this matter.
4
5
/s/ Dina D. Horsman
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28