negotiating an option without deportation; or (3) showing that deportation has such material consequences it is rational for a defendant to reject a plea offer and go to trial “regardless of the strength of the evidence against him.”Additionally, underPadilla, a client receives constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel when his or her attorney does not inform the client that a guilty plea would result in mandatory deportation. According to those evidences above, Lee could not be subject to deportation because he was prejudiced byineffective assistance of counsel.According to the New York Times, article “Justices to Hear Case on Withheld Evidence and Bad Advice” which is written by Adam Liptak, had mention that “In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that lawyers for people thinking of pleading guilty to a crime must advise their clients who are not citizens about the possibility that they will be deported.” While in Lee's case, the United
Page 6of 8States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said he had suffered no prejudice, as the correct legal advice would not have helped him. Had he gone to trial, the court said, he would have lost and still have been deported. The article didn’t support either side of the case. It didn’t clearly tell us whether Lee’s attorney provided ineffective assistance. It only mentioned that even thoughLee had been provided correct advice, nothing would be changed and he would be deported eventually. I don’t agree with it because if Lee had been provided correct advice, he would get a chance to accept the plea and the result might not be that bad. In the article, Actually,PadillaDoes Apply to Undocumented Defendants,authorDaniel Horwitz argues that the right to the effective assistance of counsel outlined in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court casePadilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), applies to undocumented defendants. This Article argues thatPadilladoes apply to undocumented defendants. Four reasons are offered to support this view. First, the contrary conclusion neglects the legal and practical reality that a guilty plea frequently does increase the risk of deportation for undocumented defendants. Second, regardless of the fact that there are myriad situations in which a guilty plea can cause an undocumented defendant to be deported who otherwise would not have been, the test for prejudice underPadillais not whether a non-citizen defendant would have been deported anyway; instead, the applicable test is whether “a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.” Third, the contention thatPadilladoes not protect undocumented defendants undermines the underlying purpose of theright to effective assistance of counsel itself: to prevent inaccurate convictions.
Want to read all 8 pages?
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 8 pages?
- Fall '08
- Supreme Court of the United States, of counsel, ineffective assistance