Jose Padilla, an LPR from Honduras, is referred in the case Padilla v. Kentucky. The court examined his case on accusing of transporting almost 1000 pounds of marijuana in a truck owned and operated by him. Although he was subsequent to the condemnation for a range of sever drug offenses, his counsel told him that he must not worry concerning immigration status as he was in the country so long. Actually, his consequent guilty appeal made deportation virtually mandatory. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that defense attorneys should offer advice to noncitizen defendants with regard to the risk of deportation (Lilia S. Stantcheva - 2014). The significance of offering defendants with perfect advice on deportation consequences of the probable conviction have increased due to noncitizens who have been convicted of crimes have turn out to be the most important targets for deportation.
It emphasizes the requirement of a sharp significance of true legal advice for noncitizen criminal defendants so that they convene the constitutional standard for the successful assistance of counsel. This case is the indication of Supreme Courts appreciation of rising connection between criminal law and immigration. Regrettably, in spite of Padillas tough language, uncertainty in the law remains. Padilla was unsuccessful as he received confirmatory misadvice from his criminal defense attorney (Kate Lebeaux - 2014). It reveals that incomplete advice may be just as unfavourable as no advice at all.
Specific arguments by the author to support the thesis
The author argues that when the immigration consequences are actually clear-cut, courts should not permit universal and vague advice to reach the standard for successful support of counsel as doing so undercuts the rationale of Padilla decision and does not support noncitizen clients.
Further argues that when the law is not concise and simple, it is a responsibility of criminal defense attorney to accurately advice noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences and further lead to deportation. She further states that all though it is unrealistic to presume criminal defense attorneys to be aware of all the intricacies of immigration law, they can and usually undergo various basic immigration training. In the case of uncertainty concerning the prominence of a crime as an aggravated felony, it indicates the risk of adverse immigration consequences and consulting immigration attorney should be sufficient (Danielle Marie Lang - 2012).
Danielle Marie Lang Padilla v. Kentucky: The Effect of Plea Colloquy Warnings on Defendants Ability To Bring Successful Padilla Claims, The Yale Law Journal 121(4) January 2012
Kate Lebeaux Padilla retroactivity on state law grounds Boston University law review, Boston University School of Law 94(5):1651-1688 October 2014
Lilia S. Stantcheva, Padilla v. Kentucky: How Much Advice is Enough, 89 New York University Law Review 1836-1866, Nov. 2014
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal: