就刑事定罪的移民后果向非公民被告提供建议:刑事辩护律师、法院和第六修正案的道德回答

Y. Vázquez
{"title":"就刑事定罪的移民后果向非公民被告提供建议:刑事辩护律师、法院和第六修正案的道德回答","authors":"Y. Vázquez","doi":"10.15779/Z38ND4S","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article discusses the tension between the Sixth Amendment analysis by courts on the issue of immigration consequences of criminal convictions and the moral and ethical duties that an attorney owes his noncitizen client. Under the majority of jurisdictions, federal circuit and state courts hold that there is no duty to advise on this issue because they are deemed to be “collateral”. However, a growing number of these jurisdictions have begun to find a Sixth Amendment violation for failure to advise. These jurisdictions have created a Sixth Amendment duty only when: 1) the attorney “knew or should have known” the client was a non-citizen; or, 2) the attorney gave misadvice. However, these holdings create perverse incentives for attorneys to implement a Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy by allowing an attorney to remain silent and fail to investigate immigration status to prevent a Sixth Amendment violation on information that a noncitizen may deem more important than the criminal sentence as well as creating lines in the responsibilities an attorney owes his client based upon stereotypical perceptions of citizenship. This Article addresses: (1) the unique role that immigration consequences have in the criminal court system that is separate and distinct from other consequences that have been deemed “collateral”; (2) the ethical dilemma that the courts have created for the criminal defense attorney when advising or not advising noncitizen clients on the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction; and (3) the obligations that criminal defense attorneys have to the court system that reinforce the attorney-client relationship while at the same time creating the foundation for better outcomes in a Sixth Amendment analysis. It argues that regardless of the Sixth Amendment law, an attorney’s ethical and moral duty is to advise his client as to the specific immigration consequences of a criminal conviction.","PeriodicalId":408518,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advising Noncitizen Defendants on the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions: The Ethical Answer for the Criminal Defense Lawyer, the Court, and the Sixth Amendment\",\"authors\":\"Y. Vázquez\",\"doi\":\"10.15779/Z38ND4S\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article discusses the tension between the Sixth Amendment analysis by courts on the issue of immigration consequences of criminal convictions and the moral and ethical duties that an attorney owes his noncitizen client. Under the majority of jurisdictions, federal circuit and state courts hold that there is no duty to advise on this issue because they are deemed to be “collateral”. However, a growing number of these jurisdictions have begun to find a Sixth Amendment violation for failure to advise. These jurisdictions have created a Sixth Amendment duty only when: 1) the attorney “knew or should have known” the client was a non-citizen; or, 2) the attorney gave misadvice. However, these holdings create perverse incentives for attorneys to implement a Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy by allowing an attorney to remain silent and fail to investigate immigration status to prevent a Sixth Amendment violation on information that a noncitizen may deem more important than the criminal sentence as well as creating lines in the responsibilities an attorney owes his client based upon stereotypical perceptions of citizenship. This Article addresses: (1) the unique role that immigration consequences have in the criminal court system that is separate and distinct from other consequences that have been deemed “collateral”; (2) the ethical dilemma that the courts have created for the criminal defense attorney when advising or not advising noncitizen clients on the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction; and (3) the obligations that criminal defense attorneys have to the court system that reinforce the attorney-client relationship while at the same time creating the foundation for better outcomes in a Sixth Amendment analysis. It argues that regardless of the Sixth Amendment law, an attorney’s ethical and moral duty is to advise his client as to the specific immigration consequences of a criminal conviction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":408518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ND4S\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ND4S","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文讨论了法院对刑事定罪的移民后果问题的第六修正案分析与律师对其非公民客户的道德和伦理义务之间的紧张关系。在大多数司法管辖区,联邦巡回法院和州法院认为没有义务就这个问题提出建议,因为它们被视为“抵押品”。然而,越来越多的司法管辖区已经开始发现,不提供咨询违反了第六修正案。这些司法管辖区仅在以下情况下才规定了第六修正案的义务:1)律师“知道或应该知道”客户是非公民;或者,2)律师给出了错误的建议。然而,这些规定为律师实施“不问/不说”政策创造了不正当的动机,允许律师保持沉默,不调查移民身份,以防止违反第六修正案的信息,而非公民可能认为这些信息比刑事判决更重要,并且根据对公民的刻板印象,在律师对客户的责任中建立了界限。本文讨论:(1)移民后果在刑事法院系统中的独特作用,它与被视为“附带”的其他后果是分开和不同的;(2)刑事辩护律师在就刑事定罪的移民后果向非公民客户提供建议或不向其提供建议时所面临的道德困境;(3)刑事辩护律师对法院系统的义务,加强了律师与客户的关系,同时为第六修正案分析中更好的结果奠定了基础。它辩称,无论《第六修正案》如何,律师的伦理和道德责任是就刑事定罪的具体移民后果向当事人提供建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advising Noncitizen Defendants on the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions: The Ethical Answer for the Criminal Defense Lawyer, the Court, and the Sixth Amendment
This Article discusses the tension between the Sixth Amendment analysis by courts on the issue of immigration consequences of criminal convictions and the moral and ethical duties that an attorney owes his noncitizen client. Under the majority of jurisdictions, federal circuit and state courts hold that there is no duty to advise on this issue because they are deemed to be “collateral”. However, a growing number of these jurisdictions have begun to find a Sixth Amendment violation for failure to advise. These jurisdictions have created a Sixth Amendment duty only when: 1) the attorney “knew or should have known” the client was a non-citizen; or, 2) the attorney gave misadvice. However, these holdings create perverse incentives for attorneys to implement a Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy by allowing an attorney to remain silent and fail to investigate immigration status to prevent a Sixth Amendment violation on information that a noncitizen may deem more important than the criminal sentence as well as creating lines in the responsibilities an attorney owes his client based upon stereotypical perceptions of citizenship. This Article addresses: (1) the unique role that immigration consequences have in the criminal court system that is separate and distinct from other consequences that have been deemed “collateral”; (2) the ethical dilemma that the courts have created for the criminal defense attorney when advising or not advising noncitizen clients on the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction; and (3) the obligations that criminal defense attorneys have to the court system that reinforce the attorney-client relationship while at the same time creating the foundation for better outcomes in a Sixth Amendment analysis. It argues that regardless of the Sixth Amendment law, an attorney’s ethical and moral duty is to advise his client as to the specific immigration consequences of a criminal conviction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信