In United States v. Arpaio, --- F.3d ---, No. 17-10448 (9th Cir. 2020), the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment
dismissing the criminal proceeding with prejudice, and denying vacatur of
the district court’s verdict finding Arpaio guilty of criminal
contempt.
As you may recall, after the guilty verdict, but before sentencing, the president pardoned Mr. Arpaio, who then moved to vacate the verdict and dismiss the case.
The district court granted the motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice, but refused to vacate the verdict. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding: "because
the mootness issue here arises from the fact that the district
court’s findings of guilt can be given no future preclusive
effect . . . Arpaio is not entitled to vacatur."
There is some good stuff in the opinion about guilty verdicts:
"Though colloquially we refer to the district court’s finding
of guilt as a 'conviction,' in reality, Arpaio never suffered a
final judgment of conviction for criminal contempt. 'Final
judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is
the judgment.'"
"[T]here is no final judgment of conviction in this case;
instead, there was a final judgment of dismissal with
prejudice. This lack of a final judgment of conviction
precludes the attachment of 'legal consequences,' such as a sentencing enhancement in a
subsequent criminal case or claim or issue preclusion in a
civil case."
"Although the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
contemplate an enhanced sentence after a guilty verdict and
pending sentencing, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1), no such
enhancement can be imposed where no sentence was
ultimately imposed and the case was dismissed."
