Law Commons^™

The Pressure Is On—Criminal Defense Counsel Strategies After Padilla V. Kentucky, Bill Hing

Bill Ong Hing

The Supreme Court’s message to criminal defense attorneys in Padilla v. Kentucky was clear: when there is a risk of deportation, defense counsel has a constitutional duty to inform an immigrant defendant of the potential for deportation or adverse immigration consequences prior to pleading guilty. In my view, this constitutional duty places tremendous pressure on defense counsel to do more than advise, because once advised, the client very naturally may want to know what options are available other than going to trial. Rather than simply focusing on how to minimize the time of incarceration for the client under a particular …

Clear And Simple Deportation Rules For Crimes: Why We Need Them And Why It's Hard To Get Them, Rebecca Sharpless

Rebecca Sharpless

Road To Booker And Beyond: Constitutional Limits On Sentence Enhancements, John Gleeson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"But My Attorney Didn't Tell Me I'D Be Deported!"--The Retroactivity Of Padilla, Tara M. Breslawski

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Understanding Immigration: Satisfying Padilla's New Definition Of Competence In Legal Representation, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Panel Discussion on Padilla v. Kentucky.

Where Do We Go From Here: Plea Colloquy Warnings And Immigration Consequences Post-Padilla, Vivian Chang

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues for the passage of criminal procedure rules that would require judges to warn criminal defendants about immigration consequences at plea colloquy. Part I addresses the overlap of criminal and immigration law, arguing that the increased use of the criminal justice system to police federal immigration laws calls for greater protection of non-citizen defendants at plea colloquy. Part II then addresses the legal duties imposed on both defense counsel and trial courts in relation to plea colloquy. Padilla merely addressed the duty of defense counsel to provide constitutionally effective assistance before plea colloquy and did not reach the …

Realizing Padilla's Promise: Ensuring Noncitizen Defendants Are Advised Of The Immigration Consequences Of A Criminal Convictions, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

On March 31, 2010 the United States Supreme court decided Padilla v. Kentucky and created a Sixth Amendment duty for defense attorneys to advise defendants of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. While Padilla answered the broad question of whether there is a duty to advise a defendant under the Sixth Amendment, it left many questions unanswered. One critical inquiry is how defense attorneys and the courts will determine what advice concerning the immigration consequences of the criminal conviction will satisfy defense counsels’ Sixth Amendment duty under Padilla.

This Article discusses the potential detrimental impact of Padilla’s ambiguous holding …

Why Padilla Doesn't Matter (Much), Darryl K. Brown

Darryl K. Brown

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky heralds a formal breakthrough in the representation provided to immigrants charged with crimes that trigger deportation, and the decision may signal as well the Court’s recognition of plea bargaining’s dominant role in criminal adjudication. There are good reasons to worry, however, that Padilla’s practical impact will be modest, and for many noncitizen criminal defendants, including probably Jose Padilla himself, nonexistent. The Padilla Court suggested that it expected attorneys to use their newly required awareness of law triggering deportation upon a criminal conviction to inform plea bargain negotiation and even change criminal …

Fitting Punishment, Juliet Stumpf

Washington and Lee Law Review

Proportionality is conspicuously absent from the legal framework for immigration sanctions. Immigration Law relies on one sanctiondeportation- as the ubiquitous penalty for any immigration violation. Neither the gravity of the violation nor the harm that results bears on whether deportation is the consequence for an immigration violation. Immigration Law stands alone in the legal landscape in this respect. Criminal Law incorporates proportionality when imposing graduated punishment based on the gravity of the offense; contract and tort Law provide for damages that are graduated based on the harm to others or to society. This Article represents the first and fundamental step …

Inter-American System, Diego Rodriguez-Pinzon

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Under People V. Pozo: Advising Non-Citizen Criminal Defendants Of Possible Immigration Consequences In Criminal Plea Agreements, Lindsay Vangilder

University of Colorado Law Review

Tens of thousands of non-citizen criminal defendants are removed from the United States each year. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and United States Supreme Court jurisprudence guarantee that these non-citizen criminal defendants will have effective assistance of criminal defense counsel, whether they elect to proceed to trial or decide to plead guilty. Although prevailing professional norms require that criminal defense counsel advise non-citizen defendants of possible immigration consequences of plea agreements, many courts do not impose a duty to advise on defense counsel. In fact, many courts deem immigration consequences to be collateral consequences rather than direct …

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Juan Rivera V. State Of Maryland, No. 08-80, Maureen A. Sweeney

Court Briefs

The petitioner requested the Maryland Court of Appeals to reverse a decision that his criminal plea of guilty was voluntary. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland had ruled it voluntary. Law professors at the University of Maryland and the University of Baltimore filed this amicus brief in support of the petitioner.

The brief presents the issue of whether a guilty plea is voluntary and knowingly given when it is based on affirmative misinformation about the direct immigration consequences of such a plea. The amici argue that the petitioner’s plea was unconstitutionally involuntary and unknowing because his attorney, the prosecutor, …

Decoupling 'Terrorist' From 'Immigrant': An Enhanced Role For The Federal Courts Post 9/11, Victor C. Romero

Journal Articles

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft has utilized the broad immigration power ceded to him by Congress to ferret out terrorists among noncitizens detained for minor immigration violations. Such a strategy provides the government two options: deport those who are not terrorists, and then prosecute others who are. While certainly efficient, using immigration courts and their less formal due process protections afforded noncitizens should trigger greater oversight and vigilance by the federal courts for at least four reasons: First, while the legitimate goal of immigration law enforcement is deportation, Ashcroft's true objective in targeting …

Sentencing Equality For Deportable Aliens: Departures From The Sentencing Guidelines On The Basis Of Alienage, Jason Bent

Michigan Law Review

Peter Bakeas, a thirty-three-year-old Greek citizen living in West Lynn, Massachusetts and working in an entry-level position at the First National Bank of Greece in Massachusetts, developed a cocaine habit he could not afford. Mounting debt from his cocaine habit pressured him to find alternative means for obtaining income. Bakeas, using his position at First National Bank of Greece, began to embezzle money from the accounts of a distant relative and some family friends. When his scheme was discovered, he confessed and made arrangements to repay the money he had taken. Bakeas pled guilty to embezzlement by a bank officer, …

Constitutional Law- Search And Seizure- Search Incidental To An Administrative Arrest, James J. White

Michigan Law Review

As a preliminary to deportation proceedings, defendant, Rudolf I. Abel, was arrested in his hotel room by Immigration and Naturalization Service agents who acted pursuant to a valid administrative arrest warrant. After the arrest, but without a search warrant, the INS searched Abel's room and seized evidence later used in his trial for espionage. In the district court Abel moved to suppress this evidence on the theory that the search violated the fourth amendment. The district court's denial of the motion was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, …

Constitutional Law-Right To Bail, Robert L. Sandblom S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution provides that "Excessive bail shall not be required . . . ." This clause, as with all of the Bill of Rights, serves as a limitation on the federal government. From a very early date this provision has likewise established a boundary on the discretion of the federal courts in their exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Although this Eighth Amendment provision is a protection against federal encroachment, it does not limit the powers of states, arguments of individual Justices to the contrary notwithstanding.

In the recent Supreme Court decision of Stack v. Boyle, this …