Dv problem

[dafortycal]

Not true, many States do not upload all arrests or convictions to the FBI, therefore they will not show up during a fingerprint check. Sometimes they will upload the arrest and forget about the convictions. One should never lie to CIS\ICE about their crimes because you never know how much access to State systems they have.

If offender was FP'd., most likly FP check will reveal it. If deportation is a risk, then better try something with at least a chance for bigger rewards

 

[toneto]

no the lawyer was just a criminal one not experienced on immigration,no weapons of any kind involved,just grabbing with force,1.5 inch bruise on upper arm the size of my thumb.

 

[Bobsmyth]

The immigration warning isn't required, most people are deported for misdemeanors not felonys.

If the defendant hasn't been told of the immigration consequences of their plea, this evidence can be used (and had been used in the past) to overrule removal orders.

 

[Bobsmyth]

no the lawyer was just a criminal one not experienced on immigration,no weapons of any kind involved,just grabbing with force,1.5 inch bruise on upper arm the size of my thumb.

Any threat of force? The bruise on upper arm may bring up the question if force was used.

 

[WBH]

If the defendant hasn't been told of the immigration consequences of their plea, this evidence can be used (and had been used in the past) to overrule removal orders.

It really depends, right? what if a person charged with murder and plead guilty
and no one told hism immigration consequence?

 

[Bobsmyth]

It really depends, right? what if a person charged with murder and plead guilty
and no one told hism immigration consequence?

It might delay or cancel removal if it can be shown that the immigration consequences of plea weren't made aware to the defendant. In murder cases you can be certain that the court will ask the defendant if they realize the immigration consequences of their plea.

 

[WBH]

It might delay or cancel removal if it can be shown that the immigration consequences of plea weren't made aware to the defendant. In murder cases you can be certain that the court will ask the defendant if they realize the immigration consequences of their plea.

Which federal law requires county court to even bother letting defendant know about immigration consequences?

 

[Bobsmyth]

Which federal law requires county court to even bother letting defendant know about immigration consequences?

Several state statutes make it a requirement for judges to notify the defendant of immigration consequences , and numerous cases have successful used this rule to challenge deportation orders.

http://www.nhacdl.org/Immigration.pdf

 

[WBH]

Several state statutes make it a requirement for judges to notify the defendant of immigration consequences , and numerous cases have successful used this rule to challenge deportation orders.

http://www.nhacdl.org/Immigration.pdf

So if a state court made a mistake by forgeting to inform a defendant charged with a serious crime about immigration consequence, a federal
government has to eat bitter fruits?

Then what will happen later after that? State start a new trial and
in this new trial state will emphasize telling teh defendants of immigration consequences?

It does not make sense to me. In my opinion, if federal government
cares so much, it should ask USCIS to administer a crminal activity immigration consequence tests before granting each person a green
card. It is too much work for nonimmigrant visas but can issue a simple
list. This way no one can have an excuse he is not aware of immigration
consequences.


Maybe Miranda warning should include such warning "If you are not a citizen and if you are convicted, o rplead guilty or nolo contest, you
will be deported".

 

[ganjik]

So if a state court made a mistake by forgeting to inform a defendant charged with a serious crime about immigration consequence, a federal
government has to eat bitter fruits?

Yep, thats what happens.

Then what will happen later after that? State start a new trial and
in this new trial state will emphasize telling teh defendants of immigration consequences?

Yep, thats what happens.

It does not make sense to me. In my opinion, if federal government
cares so much, it should ask USCIS to administer a crminal activity immigration consequence tests before granting each person a green
card. It is too much work for nonimmigrant visas but can issue a simple
list. This way no one can have an excuse he is not aware of immigration
consequences.

I would say its all about taxpayers money. What is less expensive to do - what you suggest Or what is already in place?
What happens when there is a human mistake and person is not served with the list? What happens in "gray area" crimes that are not in list - still judge or whoever has to inform defendant about consequences, right?

Maybe Miranda warning should include such warning "If you are not a citizen and if you are convicted, o rplead guilty or nolo contest, you
will be deported".

I would say it should be like this "If you are not a citizen and if you are convicted, or plead guilty or nolo contest, you MIGHT be deported or be inadmissible".

 

[WBH]

"Then what will happen later after that? State start a new trial and
in this new trial state will emphasize telling teh defendants of immigration consequences?"

Yep, thats what happens.

Does statute of limitation still apply if a trial in the past has such a flaw?
If the offense happened and was tried many years ago, how could the state
start a new trial?

 

[Bobsmyth]

The ironic thing is that you must fulfill any imposed jail sentences first before being deported. For example, a non-citizen convicted of manslaughter must serve the entire sentence first (at US tax payer's expense) before being deported.

 

[WBH]

The ironic thing is that you must fulfill any imposed jail sentences first before being deported. For example, a non-citizen convicted of manslaughter must serve the entire sentence first (at US tax payer's expense) before being deported.

It is not ironic but makes perfect sense. Otherwise deportation is a relief
for criminals facing long senetence or death penalty. They would love to
leave USA as soon as possible if that means they can get away from
serving sentenced years. Foreign countries have no obligation to jail them
once deported. So deportation before sentence is served means freedom
for these convicts.

Taxpayer's money is not an issue otherwise all prisons should be tore down to let inamtes go free

 

[toneto]

But it is only one offence (cimt)will they still have a case ??????
if they do what a waste of everibody money,may be they should just impose a fine ,that way no time it is lost and paid for something like that

 

[ganjik]

Yep statute of limitation applies. You are right - no new trial if statute of limitation runs off. Which is ok with me since there are sensable limitations from my pov: for misdemeanors I believe its 1 year, for gross mesdemeanors - 2 years, for murder - there is none.

Does statute of limitation still apply if a trial in the past has such a flaw?
If the offense happened and was tried many years ago, how could the state
start a new trial?

 

[dv02]

Guys,

Are we trying to help a person who made a mistake and now wants to find ways to get out of a terrible situation. Or are we trying to frame a fool-proof law to make the life more difficult for immigrants (who have admitted their mistakes and made positive changes to themselves and their attitude) to settle down, if s/he made a minor mistake in life.

Yes, there are state laws that demand that the trial judge should tell the defendant the consequences of deportation when entering a plea.

Thanks.

 

[WBH]

But it is only one offence (cimt)will they still have a case ??????
if they do what a waste of everibody money,may be they should just impose a fine ,that way no time it is lost and paid for something like that

DV is listed separately from CIMT for deportation criteria. A DV
offense can meet a DV but also a CIMT. A DV alone
is a deportable offense but not an inadmissible offense.
But iof a DV is also a CIMT, then depending on sentence, it
also become an inadmiisble offense.

 

[Jackolantern]

So if a state court made a mistake by forgeting to inform a defendant charged with a serious crime about immigration consequence, a federal
government has to eat bitter fruits?

Yes, because even though a deportation order is a federal action, it is based on what happened in a state court (if it is an offense prosecuted at the state level). And if the state court made a mistake, that potentially puts the conviction in doubt.

 

[WBH]

Yes, because even though a deportation order is a federal action, it is based on what happened in a state court (if it is an offense prosecuted at the state level). And if the state court made a mistake, that potentially puts the conviction in doubt.

AT most that will cancel deportation. But I doubt the state will
be obligated to nullify that trial. Otherwise a rapist can get away
from both deportation and criminal sentencing if th ejudge simply
forgot to mention immigration consequences

 

[ganjik]

I think you are a bit confused.

Let me clarify.

Judge obligated to tell you about immigration consequences ONLY when you go for a plea. In this case no trial would happen.

If trial has happened then it won't be nullified if judge didnt tell you about immigration consequences. There would be no point in time when judge has to tell you about this becasue you are not going for a plea.

Defendant can revoke his original plea in case judge didnt tell him about immigration consequences. But defendant can not nullify trial result for the same reason.

AT most that will cancel deportation. But I doubt the state will
be obligated to nullify that trial. Otherwise a rapist can get away
from both deportation and criminal sentencing if th ejudge simply
forgot to mention immigration consequences