SCOTUS: Defendants entitled to immigration advice

[usregimechange]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Immigrants have a constitutional right to be told by their lawyers whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation, the Supreme Court said Wednesday.

The high court's ruling extends the Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantee of "effective assistance of counsel" in criminal cases to immigration advice, especially in cases that involve deportation.

"The severity of deportation - the equivalent of banishment or exile - only underscores how critical it is for counsel to inform her noncitizen client that he faces a risk of deportation," said Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the opinion for the court.

The decision puts a new burden on lawyers to advise immigrant clients about the consequences of a guilty plea, although more than 20 states already require some degree of notification. Twenty-seven states also say the cost of providing lawyers for poor immigrant defendants will skyrocket because the states could also have to pay for immigration advice.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_IMMIGRATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-651.pdf


Majority

Stevens
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
Breyer
Kennedy

"It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the “mercies of incompetent counsel.” Richardson , 397 U. S., at 771. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Our longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less." -Justice Stevens , Opinion of the Court.


Concurring

Alito
Roberts

"I concur in the judgment because a criminal defense attorney fails to provide effective assistance within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 (1984) , if the attorney misleads a noncitizen client regarding the removal consequences of a conviction." -Alito, J., concurring in judgment. But disagrees because...

1) "I do not agree with the Court that the attorney must attempt to explain what those consequences may be." and
2) The courts test may lead to "needless litigation."


Dissenting

Thomas
Scalia

"The Constitution... is not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect world; and when we ignore its text in order to make it that, we often find ourselves swinging a sledge where a tack hammer is needed."

[BlooInBloo]

1. lol @ Scalia, Thomas.

What jackasses.

[MineralMan]

2. Just one more proof that the SCOTUS is a liberal, activist

court. :rofl:

[usregimechange]

3. Yes, reasonable = liberal activist

[WolverineDG]

4. I thought that was already required

:shrug: The criminal defense attorneys I know always ask for immigration status & then do their best to avoid a 2 year sentence (which the Immigration Service helpfully defines as 18 months)

on edit: "Add to the cost of representation" argument: what a pantload. All you have to do is ask your client what his/her immigration status is. If they aren't a citizen, then you tell them not to plead to any sentence of 18 months or more or it's "adios amigo." Then you throw that in the mix with your plea agreement with the DA.


dg

[usregimechange]

5. Common practice or good practice but this case was about an exception

[WolverineDG]

6. Alito & Roberts obviously never represented clients in the courtroom

because :wtf: they think an attorney DOESN'T have the duty to explain the consequences??? What planet did they practice law on? You're dead in the water if you DON'T explain the consequences of a plea or settlement agreement (this applies to civil law as well).

dg

[usregimechange]

7. I agree, makes you wonder what we would be left with if they had a few more Scalitos

[WolverineDG]

8. can you imagine a family law attorney in a community property state

NOT advising the client that retirement benefits earned during the marriage are community property???? :wtf:

Hello? Informed Consent, Mr. Chief Justice??????

dg

[usregimechange]

9. But the Constitution doesn't specifically say that, what was the retirement age back then?

35?

[WolverineDG]

11. Then as a strict constructionist, Mr. Chief Justice,

you should resign.

:evilgrin:

dg

[rug]

10. Good. Now the next step is to inform sex offense defendants of the civil commitment statutes.