By Rebecca Sharpless This past Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Chaidez v. United States, a case that raises the critical issue of whether noncitizen defendants whose attorneys failed to warn them they would be deported can challenge their pre-Padilla pleas. As pointed out in an amicus brief submitted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, other noncitizens whose defense attorneys failed to warn them that they would be deported eagerly await the Court’s ruling in Chaidez’s case. [Click here to see a list of all the symposium contributions.] The first [...]
Symposium: Chaidez—An opportunity for the Court to continue its path away from “antiretroactivity” and toward “redressability”
By Christopher Lasch Last week in my preview of the Chaidez argument, I focused on the procedural argument Chaidez makes against application of the Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), rule in her case. Chaidez argues the reasons motivating the Court to adopt the Teague rule when federal courts review state criminal judgments in habeas corpus proceedings — comity and finality — do not support application of the rule in the procedural posture her case presents. This was discussed at some length during the argument, and I will focus on it again here, though some background is necessary [...]
Symposium: Chess Game with Death: Chaidez & Retroactive Application of Padilla v Kentucky
By Michael S. Vastine The arguments in Chaidez v. United States reminded me of Ingmar Bergman’s 1957 metaphorical cinematic masterpiece The Seventh Seal, set amid the Black Plague in Europe’s Middle Ages, in which the knight character played by Max von Sydow famously engages in an extended game of chess with Death, knowing that his own demise is extended only by the continuation of the game. Chess is complicated enough without the pressures of carrying on a metaphysical discussion with the grim reaper, an entity that will ultimately win out. [Click here to see a list of all the symposium [...]
Online Symposium on Chaidez v. US: Is Padilla Retroactive?
The online symposium on Chaidez v. United States continues today with contributions by Christopher N. Lasch, Craig Siegel, and Carlos M. García. On Monday, the symposium will feature several analyses of today's oral arguments. Here's the complete list of contributions so far: Christopher N. Lasch, Chaidez and the Crumbling Foundations of the Teague Rule (November 1, 2012) Craig Siegel, Padilla is Not a New Rule Because Defense Attorneys Have Long Known to Consider Immigration Consequences (November 1, 2012) Carlos M. García, The Trials of Padilla (November 1, 2012) Yolanda Vázquez, Only [...]
Symposium: Chaidez and the crumbling foundations of the Teague rule
By Christopher N. Lasch In 2010, the Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), that a criminal defense lawyer’s failure to advise a client of the immigration consequences of a conviction can amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and require setting aside the conviction. When Padilla was announced, Roselva Chaidez’s petition for postconviction relief, raising a claim similar to Mr. Padilla’s, was pending in federal district court. The issue to be argued before the Supreme Court on Thursday, November 1, is whether Chaidez was entitled to the benefit of the rule [...]
Symposium: Padilla is not a new rule because defense attorneys have long known to consider immigration consequences
By Craig Siegel The amicus brief submitted in support of Roselva Chaidez by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA), and criminal defense and immigrant advocacy groups from across the nation, makes three important points that demonstrate why Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), should apply retroactively, including to Ms. Chaidez’s case. [Click here to see a list of all the symposium contributions.] First, as carefully documented in the brief, deeply rooted professional norms since 1996 and well before [...]
Symposium: The Trials of Padilla
By Carlos M. García On August 5, 2010, Fernando Vasquez Gonzalez’s life changed. He learned the news as he sat in the custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Port Isabel Detention Center that is located along the southern tip of Texas on the United States/Mexico border. The State District Court judge had just vacated his conviction and granted his Padilla writ. Mr. Gonzalez’s conviction for Theft of Property in which the court imposed a sentence of two years confinement, probated for five years of community supervision, an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, [...]
Online Symposium on Chaidez v. US: Is Padilla Retroactive?
Tomorrow morning the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Chaidez v. United States, No. 11-820, a case asking the Court to decide whether its landmark decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), applies retroactively. With the help of 11 outstanding contributors, and following in the footsteps of our inaugural online symposium on Moncrieffe v. Holder, No. 11-702, this symposium gathers advocates from across the immigration law spectrum: individuals who have been integrally involved in the litigation before the Court, practitioners who have successfully [...]