DeLorean Drug Case Pardon

[Rhsxo]

This afternoon I had someone mentioned hearing John DeLoreans name in relation to someone associated with his drug case receiving a Presidental Pardon. I've never heard of this guy, but I'm also not well versed in all details of that case either. Did this guy play a big role in the case against John DeLorean?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/ex-inmate-shocked-obama-pardon-i-had-hold-back-tears-n708206?client=safari

[Rich W]

Stephen Arrington was a VIP Guest Speaker at DCS 2016. Stephen has promised to return to talk at future events.

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?12080-DeLorean-Convention-and-Show-(DCS-2016)/page22

I was very happy Stephen accepted my invitation to attend DCS last year. DCS 2016 announcement listed below:


The DCS Planning Team is very pleased to announce another exciting VIP Guest Speaker for DCS 2016:

Stephen Arrington, the author of "In DeLorean's Shadow", is the sole surviving defendant from the DeLorean trial
and Stephen will be talking about his book and how his life was impacted by his involvement in the DeLorean trial.

The Press Release for Stephen's book follows:

This is a true-crime memoir about America’s greatest drug conspiracy. It involved the White House, the FBI, DEA,
CIA, IRS, DOJ, Interpol, #10 Downing Street, Pablo Escobar, Rafa; Escobar’s #1 hit man, and Max Mermelstein;
the #1 cocaine importer in the United States.

I have the original FBI Investigative Reports, the transcripts of their secret tapes, and know the things the jury
never heard because I am the last surviving defendant in that trial.

Follow Stephen Lee Arrington, Navy Vietnam vet, and bomb disposal frogman as he falls from the ranks of heroes
because of Marijuana. A trusted father figure manipulates him into the Medellin Drug Cartel. Under the threat of death,
he flies a plane from Colombia loaded with 650 lbs. of cocaine. In Los Angeles, he is arrested with John Z. DeLorean.

This is a whirlwind of adventure and criminal intrigue with smugglers, hit men, and violent inmates as an ex-naval hero
tries to rediscover himself. In prison, he becomes chief engineer of an inmate fire crew and leads the emergency response
to save the crew of the first B-1 bomber to crash. It went down six miles from Boron Prison Camp.

This is a book about hope as a childhood dream morphs into an ex-felon’s reality when two years out of prison, he becomes
chief diver and expedition leader for Captain Jacques Yves Cousteau. For over half of a decade, he goes on an underwater
odyssey of incredible adventures diving with whales, dolphins, and great white sharks.

More details about Stephen Arrington and his book can be found at the following links:

http://www.drugsbite.com

www.dreammachinefoundation.com



This afternoon I had someone mentioned hearing John DeLoreans name in relation to someone associated with his drug case receiving a Presidental Pardon. I've never heard of this guy, but I'm also not well versed in all details of that case either. Did this guy play a big role in the case against John DeLorean?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/ex-inmate-shocked-obama-pardon-i-had-hold-back-tears-n708206?client=safari

[DavidProehl]

Stephen ended up in the cell next to DeLorean the day John was arrested. Also, it was the cocaine he was carrying when he got arrested that was used in the sting operation with DeLorean.

Stephen spoke at DCS last year, so most of us that went got to hear his story at least once. Pretty interesting life he's had.

Edit: Rich beat me to it, and with a much more helpful post at that!

[David T]

Stephen ended up in the cell next to DeLorean the day John was arrested. Also, it was the cocaine he was carrying when he got arrested that was used in the sting operation with DeLorean.

Stephen spoke at DCS last year, so most of us that went got to hear his story at least once. Pretty interesting life he's had.

Edit: Rich beat me to it, and with a much more helpful post at that!

Steve Arrington played a very minor role in JZD's case. He smuggled the drugs that were used in the case against JZD so, yes, he was tangentially involved in the case. He led a very interesting life. I recommend buying and reading his book, "In Delorean's Shadow". We also had him as a guest speaker for the DMA. IMHO he did the crime, admitted to it, went to jail and paid his price to society. While he never implicated anyone else and was remorseful, he is a convicted drug runner. Not a little bit either. It was a large quantity. Does he deserve a pardon, I don't think so. All of the pardons given out like door prizes diminishes all of the effort to stop drugs and crime. What would you think if a member of your family died from an overdose of the poison he smuggled? Pardons and clemency should be reserved for those wrongly convicted or incarcerated excessively for minor crimes.

[DMCVegas]

Steve Arrington played a very minor role in JZD's case. He smuggled the drugs that were used in the case against JZD so, yes, he was tangentially involved in the case. He led a very interesting life. I recommend buying and reading his book, "In Delorean's Shadow". We also had him as a guest speaker for the DMA. IMHO he did the crime, admitted to it, went to jail and paid his price to society. While he never implicated anyone else and was remorseful, he is a convicted drug runner. Not a little bit either. It was a large quantity. Does he deserve a pardon, I don't think so. All of the pardons given out like door prizes diminishes all of the effort to stop drugs and crime. What would you think if a member of your family died from an overdose of the poison he smuggled? Pardons and clemency should be reserved for those wrongly convicted or incarcerated excessively for minor crimes.

His being pardoned doesn't affect me. The effectiveness of deterring crime, let alone rehabilitation versus profiteering with the American penal system is a whole other argument. My only opinion/objection about it is what I've already posted in the other thread: If the prosecuting attorney felt so bad for his convention that they wrote letters to advocate on his behalf to have him pardoned, why in the world did they even bother proceeding with the trial and convicting him in the first place?

[SamHill]

His being pardoned doesn't affect me. The effectiveness of deterring crime, let alone rehabilitation versus profiteering with the American penal system is a whole other argument. My only opinion/objection about it is what I've already posted in the other thread: If the prosecuting attorney felt so bad for his convention that they wrote letters to advocate on his behalf to have him pardoned, why in the world did they even bother proceeding with the trial and convicting him in the first place?

Because the Assistant US Attorney gets its direction from managers who get their direction from the appointed U.S. Attorney who gets her direction from DOJ. A prosecutor as a person can have a different opinion but in the courtroom, he represents the country and prosecutes the case to the best of his ability, just as the other side mounts a vigorous defense.

[DMCVegas]

Because the Assistant US Attorney gets its direction from managers who get their direction from the appointed U.S. Attorney who gets her direction from DOJ. A prosecutor as a person can have a different opinion but in the courtroom, he represents the country and prosecutes the case to the best of his ability, just as the other side mounts a vigorous defense.

Which makes sense in as how the system operates (which is why I didn't call out the sentencing judge whose hand was obviously forced), but shows yet another glaring failure in our judicial system. But hey, the International Law Commission said it best in 1951:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

But getting back to the subject of the thread, Arrington did indeed play a very small role in the whole scheme of things. Other than the fact that the drugs he brought were used in the simultaneous sting operation against JZD, there really isn't any connection between the two that I'm aware of.

[SamHill]

Which makes sense in as how the system operates (which is why I didn't call out the sentencing judge whose hand was obviously forced), but shows yet another glaring failure in our judicial system. But hey, the International Law Commission said it best in 1951:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

But getting back to the subject of the thread, Arrington did indeed play a very small role in the whole scheme of things. Other than the fact that the drugs he brought were used in the simultaneous sting operation against JZD, there really isn't any connection between the two that I'm aware of.

People who are philosophically opposed to performing their duties should resign their posts, but as ancient philosopher Paulus McCartneyus once said, "If you got a job to do, you got to do it well."

[DMCVegas]

People who are philosophically opposed to performing their duties should resign their posts, but as ancient philosopher Paulus McCartneyus once said, "If you got a job to do, you got to do it well."

Although this is more a question of basic, nondenominational morality, I couldn't agree with you more. But when enough people refuse to participate in a system by refusing to execute their duties, that should be a sign that there is a problem that needs to be examined.

Sadly, most people don't get to hear those philosophical words and poetry of late much anymore given that they were including on the post 9/11 soft-censorship music list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Clear_Channel_memorandum) that dropped them out of their rotations.

[David T]

While his crime was tangentially related to JZD's case, their lawyers worked hand-in-hand. Mr Arryington's defense was intimately entwined with JZD's and as such Mr. Arrington wound up with all of the documents related to his and JZD's defense. He had only a couple of brief contacts with JZD where they basically exchanged greetings. If you look at the entirety of the case, all of the "big" players walked or had reduced sentences. Mr. Arrington was the only one who served hard time. They always come down hard on the "little people". In Mr. Arrington's case mainly because he would not cooperate and testify against anyone to lighten his sentence. In that respect he was a "stand up" guy and took what he believed to be a fair punishment for his crime. As for the prosecutor recommending leniency, that was after he vigorously prosecuted him for his crime. After seeing how Mr. Arryington turned his life around while incarcerated, the prosecutor felt he was deserving of a second chance. His recommendation had nothing to do with how the prosecutor felt during the case so I see no conflict.

[Bob635]

Hmm? Pardoning him after he is already served his time? Good publicity, but accomplished nothing.

The person who really deserved a pardon was JZD. He was set up by the US government and the negative publicity destroyed his car company.
Though he was never convicted in court, he was convicted in the media.

Many people believe JZD was a criminal, others don't believe the scientific research on climate change. Both are wrong.

"Stupid quota exceeded. Please try again later."

Bob

[SamHill]

Many people believe JZD was a criminal, others don't believe the scientific research on climate change. Both are wrong.

"Stupid quota exceeded. Please try again later."

Bob

Bob, that's false equivalency.

Of course, a pardon cannot happen without a conviction, as there is nothing to pardon.

[DavidProehl]

Hmm? Pardoning him after he is already served his time? Good publicity, but accomplished nothing.

Being a convicted felon causes havoc on the rest of your life. It is much harder to get a job, you can't vote, and try convincing a girl that she should go out with a felon.

Admittedly, it feels late, but pardons after time served are still very valuable.

[David T]

Being a convicted felon causes havoc on the rest of your life. It is much harder to get a job, you can't vote, and try convincing a girl that she should go out with a felon.

Admittedly, it feels late, but pardons after time served are still very valuable.

There are many jobs where you cannot be hired if you are a convicted felon. Some States will allow them to vote. It can also make it difficult to borrow money from a bank. Clemency is where you are released early, a pardon is where they wipe your record clean. In Mr. Arrington's case, he accepted the sentence as being fair and served his time. He knew pleading guilty would make him a convicted felon and accepted that at the time. To later ask for a pardon when he did the crime, a serious crime, admitted to it and served the time, makes him look hypocritical in asking for and accepting a pardon. Not everyone offered a pardon accepts. There are conditions you must agree to to receive the pardon. Just because it is offered does not require you to accept it. An FALN prisoner refused his because of the conditions attached to it and he would not take it without another fellow prisoner also getting it. The joke is on him because after he refused his pardon the other prisoner got and took a pardon leaving the 1st one still in prison! So much for loyalty! Those guys were in prison because people got killed. No way should anyone involved with a death get a pardon. The person who got killed can never come back, the ones who caused it should never get clemency or a pardon.
Then there is expungment. You apply to the court and they can wipe your record clean. It costs but if you know the right people and pay for it you can get it. That is after you serve the sentence.
Google Obama pardons and look at all of the people he handed out pardons to. You can see the crimes and the sentences.

[DMCVegas]

We're really starting to get into a hazy area here about political discussion.

Yes, there are some jobs that will exclude you when you have a felony, just as much as there are ones where your credit score can also impact your eligibility. However, regardless of this requirement, many employers still inquire about felony convictions on job applications. As a result many people wind up being discriminated against by because of that factor and become involuntarily unemployable (http://cepr.net/documents/publications/ex-offenders-2010-11.pdf) with such discrimination being impossible to prove by the applicant. The results of which severely impact not only the job market as a whole in a negative fashion, but the rehabilitation and recidivism of convicts and the communities which they live in.

Likewise it can also be far more beneficial for someone to plead guilty to a crime than to contest it. Particularly if they do not have the financial means for private, effictive legal counsel, or such expenses which could otherwise cause massive financial hardships for their families. Which also doesn't take into consideration more lenient punishments which include shorter incarcerations and/or parole to grant both freedom as well as faster regaining of income potential for those who must provide for their families.

And then there is even suspect intimidation from individual prosecutors and law enforcement, to the entire profiteering penal system itself which benefits from prison labor. https://www.unicor.gov/

So we do not know what an individual's particular situation may be when they plead guilty to a crime. What we do however know in this particular case is that both the prosecutor as well as sentencing judge both filed paperwork on Arrigton's behalf in order to get him that pardon. Think about that. Sentencing judges may have their hand's tied, especially when it comes to mandatory sentences. And just as SamHill pointed out, the same can also happen with the prosecutors when they are ordered to proceed with trials against defendants. That means that there is something gravely wrong with the system. Even of those two factors were not involved and they protested his petition, I don't blame Arrington for at least trying. But there is something gravely wrong enough here to where he shouldn't even have been prosecuted in the first place. Which is also a very similar instance of a systemic problem with JZD and why he beat his charges (albeit for different reasons). The DEA had a case so weak that De Lorean wasn't even involved in the drug deal itself. But some decided to still push ahead and prosecute a bad case against someone. THAT is what should really be examined here.

[Soundkillr]

Guys, tread carefully. Politics and opinions (both "scientifically proven" or not) don't work well in these threads.

[David T]

Guys, tread carefully. Politics and opinions (both "scientifically proven" or not) don't work well in these threads.

Mr. Arrington did the crime and he did the time. The bottom line is does he deserve a pardon just because he was able to turn his life around in spite of all of his history and his felony conviction? Let's not forget how serious his crime was. It was a large amount of drugs. Even he admits he should have known better. He got manipulated into doing it but in the end it was his choice. I say pardons are for the rare cases where the justice system makes a big error and the only recourse for a person is to ask for it. That doesn't fit this case.

[Soundkillr]

David, I don't care about the pardon, or the history behind it. My comment is directed to those interjecting political jargon, and opinion, based on hear say unrelated to any events related to this case.
My bottom line is reminding members to stick to the facts (and most have done a great job) and I don't want to be the one to put an end to the party, but rules are rules.
Comments about global warming (or the like) are going to add nothing to the conversation and will only end up pissing everyone off.

[David T]

Kind of hard to ignore politics when it was the outgoing president in the last days of his term handing out pardons like party favors to convicted felons. If these people were so deserving of pardons why couldn't he give them out during his term and not wait til the very end? The short answer is he waited till the end so he would not be around for the fallout. Wither you agree or disagree with the practice of handing out pardons, why does it have to be done at the 12th hour? And now, once given they can't be taken back! There is no judicial review either, just the President exercising his enormous power in this instance.

[Andrew]

Bob, that's false equivalency.

Of course, a pardon cannot happen without a conviction, as there is nothing to pardon.

Actually a pardon can be granted without a conviction. Not to get political, but the prime example of a pardon without a conviction was President Ford's September 1974 preemptive pardon of President Nixon for any and all crimes that he may have committed from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974. At the time the Ford issued the pardon, Nixon had not even been charged with a crime.

Furthermore, Ford and Carter granted blanket pardons to Vietnam Conflict era draft dodgers.

[Andrew]

The absolute authority to grant pardons for Federal offenses is vested with the President of the United States via the Constitution. In essence, it gives the President a check on the criminal justice system. Since 1981 there has been an Office of the Pardon Attorney division within the Executive Branch (probably under the Dept of AG.) Historically, a disproportionate number of pardons and clemency orders are granted in the final days of Presidential administration. There are likely a number of reasons for this. While some are political, many of these pardons and clemency orders wait for years because the Office of the Pardon Attorney is likely overworked and understaffed. Thus, pardons are not something that get a lot of priority within an administration. Only at the very end of an administration does resolving pending applications become a priority. Either way in a country with over 300 million people and millions of convicted felons, the number of pardons and commutation orders, in the last week of an administration or otherwise, are extremely small.

While Stephen Arrington's pardon did involve a historically high-profile case, I doubt that politics played any role in his pardon. Heck, most people don't even remember the DeLorean trial anymore.

For the reasons stated by others, the stigma of a felony conviction lingers long after a prison term ends. Even a person who takes a felony plea with no jail time will, absent subsequent legal action such as a pardon or expungement, be a convicted felon for life. This impacts / precludes an citizens ability to vote, get employment own a firearm etc. From a lifetime standpoint, it would generally be better for a defendant to take a misdemeanor with a 364 days in jail as opposed to any felony even without any jail time.

I had the privilege of meeting Stephen Arrington at the 2016 Convention and I'm currently reading his book. I have never met somebody who so rightfully deserved a pardon. I am a law and order conservative Republican, however, in this case I believe Former President Obama made the right call.

In the case of Stephen Arrington's pardon, his application was supported in writing by the prosecutor in his case and the judge who sentenced him! It's doubtful that happens very often! As Mr. Arrington admits in his book, he plead guilty because he was guilty. He took accountability for his actions, served his time and had dedicated his life to the education regarding the dangers of drug use and drug abuse prevention.

The Presidential Pardon is a recognition that the country has forever forgiven Stephen Arrington for his crime. From January 17, 2017 forward if anyone asks if he is a convicted felon, he can without hesitation say "No!"

Congratulations to Stephen on his well-deserved pardon! Hope to see him at the next convention!

[Soundkillr]

Kind of hard to ignore politics when it was the outgoing president in the last days of his term handing out pardons like party favors to convicted felons. If these people were so deserving of pardons why couldn't he give them out during his term and not wait til the very end? The short answer is he waited till the end so he would not be around for the fallout. Wither you agree or disagree with the practice of handing out pardons, why does it have to be done at the 12th hour? And now, once given they can't be taken back! There is no judicial review either, just the President exercising his enormous power in this instance.

Dave I understand, and don't argue that fact, but pointing it out goes down a dangerous path and you know that.

[Soundkillr]

Actually a pardon can be granted without a conviction. Not to get political, but the prime example of a pardon without a conviction was President Ford's September 1974 preemptive pardon of President Nixon for any and all crimes that he may have committed from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974. At the time the Ford issued the pardon, Nixon had not even been charged with a crime.

Furthermore, Ford and Carter granted blanket pardons to Vietnam Conflict era draft dodgers.

This is absolutely true....