Flake vs. Arpaio civil case now in hands of jury
Eight jurors in a civil trial against Joe Arpaio have been left to decide whether the former sheriff pursued a credible case of animal cruelty while he was in office, or whether he maliciously targeted the animals’ caretakers for publicity.
The case centers on a June 2014 tragedy, when 21 dogs died of heat exhaustion while kenneled at a home outside of Gilbert.
Four people, including Arizona U.S. Senator Jeff Flake’s son, Austin, were indicted on 21 felony counts of animal cruelty in relation to the deaths. Austin Flake and his then-wife, Logan Brown, had been caring for the dogs while Brown’s parents were away.
But all charges were later dropped by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office because the grand jury didn’t hear about issues with the room’s air-conditioning where the dogs were kept, County Attorney Bill Montgomery said at the time.
Flake and Brown sued Arpaio for malicious prosecution in 2015. Though the suit didn’t ask for a specific amount in
damages, an earlier notice of claim sought $8 million.
Each side’s attorneys made their closing arguments Thursday in the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in downtown Phoenix, capping off a sixday jury trial.
Neither of the case’s star players, Arpaio or Jeff Flake, was seen in the courtroom on Thursday.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Stephen Montoya, asserted that Arpaio’s interest in the case was not about justice, but to boost his public image.
Montoya laid out Arpaio’s repeated press conferences, statements and publicity stunts related to the case: He pointed to a press conference where Arpaio showed the media photos of the dead dogs, and a Sheriff ’s Office-commissioned helicopter search for one dog from the house who had gone missing.
Montoya argued that while there was media interest in the case before Arpaio’s involvement, the lawman inflamed the coverage.
“Would there have been publicity? Sure,” he said. “Would it have died down but for Sheriff Joe releasing press releases, including the pictures of the dead dogs?… Sheriff Joe wouldn’t let it die down, and then these kids were indicted.”
Montoya showcased evidence of faulty air-conditioning on the night in question, but said Arpaio’s investigator Marie Trombi told the grand jury that it was working fine all night.
He said Trombi’s statements were an effort to reinforce her boss.
Montoya implored the jury to decide what the case was really about, through the process of elimination. It wasn’t about food, water or air-conditioning, he said.
“Now let me tell you what it is about,” Montoya said in closing. “It’s about the power of government to crush a private citizen’s life.”
Arpaio attorney Jeffrey Leonard reminded the jury that there were specific requirements to prove a law-enforcement officer committed malicious prosecution. Either the officer’s desire for proceedings was the determining factor in the prosecution, or the officer knowingly provided false information to prosecutors.
Leonard said neither here was the case.
Leonard pushed back against suggestions that Arpaio’s interest in the case was an attempt to bruise the reputation of Jeff Flake. He pointed out that a local television station first reported the family connection.
He also blamed the media for Austin Flake and Brown’s claim of emotional suffering, which they said resulted in depression and their marriage crumpling.
The defense cast doubt on another one of the plaintiffs’ claims: that Arpaio’s publicity had tarnished the former couple’s reputation.
“There’s been no evidence to this case about damage to reputation,” he said, adding that no one had testified that they changed their opinions about the couple after the case.
“Were they hurt by these events, by the deaths of these dogs? Sure,” Leonard said. “But there’s one claim and one claim only in this case, and that is malicious prosecution.
“And the plaintiffs cannot establish malicious prosecution unless one defendant acted for some purpose other than to bring people they thought committed crimes to justice.”
The jury will begin deliberating Friday morning. Jury members will determine whether the plaintiffs’ attorneys met their burden to prove malicious prosecution, and, if so, how much to award each plaintiff.
County taxpayers will foot the bill should Austin Flake and Brown be awarded damages.