There was no jury and therefore no jury verdict.
How then can this judge claim evidence of MOTIVE or INTENT establishes fact?
The Sheriff was charged with violating a court order to which he admitted he was knowledgeable of the court order but chose to do his job as he was authorized and expected to do without intent to profile persons arrested.
This judge can rule evidence is admissible, but deeming evidence as fact of MOTIVE or INTENT without a jury verdict appears arbitrary.
When a defendant pleads innocent, the defendant’s MOTIVE or INTENT is determined by credible witness testimony, legal recording, or admissible documents in front of a jury.
I remember reading that the Sheriff asked more than once for his right to a jury trial and was denied.
I sense that Sheriff Arpaio’s rights have been violated, perhaps grossly.
I guarantee the attitude of the 900 or so Article III judges would change for the better if congress collected, through impeachment, a judicial scalp or two every year.