Accepting a Pardon Means Admission of Guilt
When told that President Trump was seriously considering issuing a pardon, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is due to be sentenced for criminal contempt of court for ignoring a judge's order to stop detaining people he suspected of being undocumented immigrants, is reported to have said "I would accept the pardon because I am 100 percent not guilty."
August 29, 2017 at 12:27 AM
3 minute read
When told that President Trump was seriously considering issuing a pardon, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is due to be sentenced for criminal contempt of court for ignoring a judge's order to stop detaining people he suspected of being undocumented immigrants, is reported to have said “I would accept the pardon because I am 100 percent not guilty.”
Before he actually accepts the pardon, Mr. Arpaio might wish to review the Supreme Court's decision in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), in which the Court explained the implications of acceptance. A pardon, the Court found, “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Indeed, President Gerald Ford cited Burdick extensively in explaining his pardon of Richard Nixon, and at President Ford's instruction, President Nixon was briefed about the Burdick decision and the implications of accepting the pardon. The defendant “may accept it or not, as he pleases,” and thus the “escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy.” Burdick thus states repeatedly that acceptance of a pardon amounts to a confession, which would not be consistent with Arpaio's assertion that he is “100 percent not guilty.”
History contains several examples of persons refusing to accept a pardon in order to avoid the admission of guilt that accompanies it, in circumstances more compelling than Arpaio's. Confederate President Jefferson Davis famously declined to seek a congressionally bestowed pardon under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that “repentance must precede the right of pardon, and I have not repented.” In United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833), the defendant was convicted of robbing the U.S. Mail in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death. Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by President Andrew Jackson. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. Attorney General (later Chief Justice) Roger Taney argued that “unless he [the defendant] pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence.” The Supreme Court agreed, noting that “A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him.” Having refused the pardon, Wilson thereafter was hanged.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSuspected Shooter of UnitedHealthcare CEO Is Charged With Murder in New York. Now What?
Civil Reservations: An Important Tool for New Jersey Courts and Criminal Defendants
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250