The pair said they had not met with Arizona's new U.S. Attorney, Dennis Burke.
Why are they allowed to speak about secret grand jury matters, you might wonder? Particularly considering that New Times founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were arrested by the MCSO in 2007 for going public over a grand jury — one never actually impaneled — that would have been investigating trumped-up allegations against this paper.
courtesy of Dennis Gilman
Fringe elements: "Angry Jim" Markins looking to smack someone with his sign.
courtesy of Sal Reza
Lynne Stevens with her gun ready to go.
Related Content
More About
(In case you're new to the story, the charges against Lacey and Larkin were dropped the next day by County Attorney Andrew Thomas after a tsunami of public outrage forced his hand.)
The answer is that U.S. grand juries are different from state grand juries in that Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure insist on silence from just about everyone but witnesses.
The American Bar Association's Web site offers a concise explanation:
"The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable and, in part, to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony."
A high-ranking federal official who tipped me off in December that the U.S. Attorney's office was prepared to act early in the new year, explained that the U.S. Attorney's Office probably wanted Wilson and Smith to go public for a couple of reasons: to protect them from further harassment and to encourage other prospective witnesses to come forward with tales of MCSO abuse.
Enter Phoenix's fish-wrap with a piece featuring a headline that sums up the daily newspaper's premise: "Joe Arpaio, MCSO Investigation May Not Lead to Indictment."
Thanks for the news flash, Miss Marple. Arpaio and Co. could practically use the Republic's article as a press release (though I would suggest an even less laudatory use for the paper it's printed on).
This is the same daily whose star columnist accepts a pizza pie from Arpaio in jest whenever he mildly admonishes the sheriff in print. That's with the emphasis on mildly.
If the Rep meant to belie the seriousness of a federal grand jury probing our county's corrupt top cop, its effort was undercut by the announcement that the MCSO's chief financial officer, Loretta Barkell, has been subpoenaed by the grand jury, as well.
My fed source tells me that we should expect other MCSO muck-a-mucks to be hauled before the panel. Believe me, if they call Chief Deputy David Hendershott, I'll be in the lobby of the Sandra Day O'Connor Federal Courthouse to note the monumental occasion.
Of course, I can't get into the proceedings themselves, but the fact that the MCSO higher-ups are getting scrutinized like Mafia dons is encouraging. When Channel 5 interviewed ex-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias for a piece on Arpaio's abuses, he said (if he were in charge in Arizona) he would work closely with a grand jury to seek an indictment.
On what grounds could Arpaio or his underlings be indicted? At the time, Iglesias pointed to federal statutes proscribing a conspiracy against someone's constitutional rights, and preventing law enforcement's acting under "the color of law" to do the same.
Sheesh, everything nefarious that Arpaio and his henchmen have done during the sheriff's 17 years in power has been done under the "color of law."
It may be too much to anticipate that some of the sheriff's stooges will one day be forced to trade in their brown shirts for pairs of Arpaio-issue pink underwear. But for those of us who've been jumping up and down screaming for the feds to act, there is small satisfaction in seeing them do something.
Now, the U.S. Attorney's Office needs to step it up. There's no doubt that indictments are possible. Talk about your low-hanging fruit! If the feds examine it hard enough, it will fall off the tree.
