USA Today
WASHINGTON — Attorneys must tell their immigrant clients if pleading guilty to a crime carries a risk of deportation, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a decision bolstering the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance from a lawyer.
"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," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. "Our long-standing Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the ... impact of deportation on families ... demand no less."
Seven of the nine justices agreed that the constitutional rights of a Kentucky drug defendant had been violated because his lawyer gave bad information about the possibility of deportation. Two members of the majority disagreed with Stevens' broad reading of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas fully dissented.
The case of Padilla v. Kentucky had been closely watched by immigrants rights advocates concerned about how federal laws over the years has greatly expanded the types of crimes that warrant deportation.
Michelle Fei, co-director of the New York-based Immigrant Defense Project, said immigrants "often plead guilty unaware that the result would be permanent exile from their families and communities." She praised the court for recognizing that "deportation is an extreme penalty."
The U.S. Justice Department, which had argued that lawyers do not have to provide advice on the deportation consequences of a guilty plea, had no comment.
The Supreme Court case centered on Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras, who has been a lawful permanent resident for 40 years. Stevens noted that Padilla served in the U.S. military during the Vietnam War.
In 2002, Padilla pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana.
After agreeing to a plea deal, Padilla discovered that it exposed him to deportation proceedings. He claimed his lawyer told him that he "did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long." He says he would not have pleaded guilty if he had not received the flawed advice.
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel does not protect a defendant from bad advice about deportation. Like some other state and federal courts, the Kentucky top court minimized deportation as merely a "collateral" consequence of the guilty plea.
The Supreme Court's decision Wednesday treats deportation as a far more serious consequence. Stevens referred to the "steady expansion of deportable offenses" and said, "The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important."
The justices returned Padilla's case to lower courts for proceedings on whether his attorneys bad advice sufficiently hurt his case to require a new hearing.
Joining Stevens were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito agreed that lawyers should not mislead an immigrant about deportation but disagreed with Stevens on how far the lawyer must go to explain potentially complex immigration law.
In dissent, Scalia, joined by Thomas, said the majority too expansively interpreted the protections against ineffective counsel. "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."
"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," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. "Our long-standing Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the ... impact of deportation on families ... demand no less."
Seven of the nine justices agreed that the constitutional rights of a Kentucky drug defendant had been violated because his lawyer gave bad information about the possibility of deportation. Two members of the majority disagreed with Stevens' broad reading of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas fully dissented.
The case of Padilla v. Kentucky had been closely watched by immigrants rights advocates concerned about how federal laws over the years has greatly expanded the types of crimes that warrant deportation.
Michelle Fei, co-director of the New York-based Immigrant Defense Project, said immigrants "often plead guilty unaware that the result would be permanent exile from their families and communities." She praised the court for recognizing that "deportation is an extreme penalty."
The U.S. Justice Department, which had argued that lawyers do not have to provide advice on the deportation consequences of a guilty plea, had no comment.
The Supreme Court case centered on Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras, who has been a lawful permanent resident for 40 years. Stevens noted that Padilla served in the U.S. military during the Vietnam War.
In 2002, Padilla pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana.
After agreeing to a plea deal, Padilla discovered that it exposed him to deportation proceedings. He claimed his lawyer told him that he "did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long." He says he would not have pleaded guilty if he had not received the flawed advice.
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel does not protect a defendant from bad advice about deportation. Like some other state and federal courts, the Kentucky top court minimized deportation as merely a "collateral" consequence of the guilty plea.
The Supreme Court's decision Wednesday treats deportation as a far more serious consequence. Stevens referred to the "steady expansion of deportable offenses" and said, "The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important."
The justices returned Padilla's case to lower courts for proceedings on whether his attorneys bad advice sufficiently hurt his case to require a new hearing.
Joining Stevens were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito agreed that lawyers should not mislead an immigrant about deportation but disagreed with Stevens on how far the lawyer must go to explain potentially complex immigration law.
In dissent, Scalia, joined by Thomas, said the majority too expansively interpreted the protections against ineffective counsel. "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."
No comments:
Post a Comment