crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Book Tour
  • Talks & Media

Symposium: Only Defense Attorneys can Raise the Competency Bar

By Yolanda Vázquez I can remember where I was sixteen years ago when the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act went into effect. I was a public defender (PD) in Chicago. I had only been a PD for a little over a year. I was assigned to one of the three domestic violence courtrooms; a courtroom where the majority of the defendants were Spanish speaking non-citizens because I was one of the few Spanish speaking PDs in an office of 625 attorneys. Looking back, it was this moment in my life, that for better or worse, sealed my [...]

Posted by César on October 31, 2012 on 9:03 am 8 Comments
Filed Under: Chaidez, commentaries, guest blogger, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, right to counsel, Scholars Sidebar, Symposium, U.S. Supreme Court

Symposium: Retroactivity means relief from incompetent counsel

By Neil I. Fleischer As the son of an immigration attorney, I would often accompany my father to various speeches he would give regarding United States immigration law. He begins every speech by “stating that US immigration is the most complex law in our country. At any one time you can deal with three to five government agencies: the Department of Labor, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of State, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the US customs and Border Protection.” [Click here to see a list of all the symposium contributions.] He would always [...]

Posted by César on October 31, 2012 on 9:01 am 3 Comments
Filed Under: Chaidez, commentaries, guest blogger, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, right to counsel, Scholars Sidebar, Symposium, U.S. Supreme Court

Symposium: Chaidez-Padilla Retroactivity is Needed

By Maurice Hew, Jr. It begs the question of judicial integrity and professional responsibility. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that every accused shall have the right to counsel for his defense. But, “the mere physical presence of…counsel is not enough: it is the marriage of the attorney’s legal knowledge and mature judgment with the defendant’s factual knowledge that makes for an adequate defense.” United States of America v. Smith, 640 F.3d 580 (4th Cir. 2011). Today, counsel’s knowledge must necessarily include the accused’s immigration objectives and must clearly communicate to the [...]

Posted by César on October 31, 2012 on 9:00 am 2 Comments
Filed Under: Chaidez, commentaries, guest blogger, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, right to counsel, Scholars Sidebar, Symposium, U.S. Supreme Court

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Moving to Ohio State University
  • Immigration, Nativism & Race in the United States
  • Border Patrol apprehensions, 1925-2020
  • Supreme Court says gap in conviction records hurts migrant
  • Abolish ICE
  • Federal court enjoins 100-day deportation pause

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.