fatbrit

Immigrants must be told by their lawyers whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation, the Supreme Court said Wednesday.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...migration.html

DeanUK2US

I think it's fair. The defendant should be entitled to minimal risk of having to 'flip a coin' to determine their future.

meauxna

hmm.
This is one where it's easy to see both sides.

henryh

What's the "other side"?

DeanUK2US

Criminal prosecution attorneys offering immigration attorney advice and being expected to get it right I guess.

meauxna

Depends on what the first side is?
(the dissenting side is understandable to me, as well as the decision)

DeanUK2US

Aw, I missed.

Moonshadow_Girl

I fail to see how it is the responsibility of the Prosecutor to relay the immigration consequences. I would think that it would be the responsibility of the Defendant's attorney, ie. the Defense Attorney, to relay the implications to his client of all aspects of the plea.

S Folinsky

Where is the link in this thread to the actual case? I can't find it.

Query: do people think that the New York Times link provided by Fatbrit is accurate?

meauxna

sigh.
It's in your thread, of course.

It would be a lot simpler, and a lot less.. judgmental sounding, if you just linked your thread to this one, or added the case here. That's how user forums work. Im not running a reference library.

S Folinsky

I think the dissent is valueless. This was a 7-2 decision -- but the breakdown of the 7 was 5 plus 2 in concurrence. I find it of particular interest that Kentucky is one of the courts that actually gives notice that there may be consequences. Also, that both Padilla and Kentucky found the California approach to be less than desirable.

The 5 justice majority found that there are some case where the answer is obvious. The concurrence had trouble with that. However, all seven agreed that Padilla's attorney was ineffective and should not have given the bad advice. The remand for "prejudice" will be interesting. There is a huge conflict of the circuits on that one.

Historical note: For decades, there was a rubric that in no other area of the law was the power of Congress so broad as in Immigration. Well in 1996, Congress took the Supremes at their word. And the Supremes have been pushing back -- note that there is frequent mention of the St. Cyr case. Also, the discussion of JRAD's at the beginning. The JRAD went by the wayside back [I forget exactly when -- but it was at least 20 years ago]. JRAD does not strike me as relevant.

The majority decision strikes me as big "shot across the bow" while the concurrence reaches the same result, but in a more measured fashion.

S Folinsky

Padilla v Kentucky -- the actual decision. The NY Times article is a lot more succinct. May not be accurate, but it is succinct.

Observation -- the first news reports of a longish Supreme Court decision are not always on the money.

nettlebed

You could be: you're hot, like my favorite librarian!!!

fatbrit

Are you trying to open an on-line law school here?

Everybody knows the NYT is trashy liberal propaganda. Real men read the Daily Mail -- but they haven't seen fit to comment yet.

S Folinsky

Be nice. In looking again at this thread, I now see that Meauxna's language had a enough wiggle room that it conformed to what she meant and to what I had thought she had said. The divergence between the two perceptions led to both of us being a little testy.