I Want My (Immigration) Lawyer! The Necessity of Court-Appointed Immigration Counsel in Criminal Prosecutions after Padilla v. Kentucky

31 Pages Posted: 12 Apr 2012 Last revised: 15 Apr 2012

Date Written: 2012

Abstract

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that, under the Sixth Amendment, counsel is required to advise a noncitizen of the possibility of deportation in the event of a criminal conviction in order for the representation to be constitutionally valid. In cases where the immigration consequences of a plea or conviction are clear and succinct, an attorney is required to discuss those consequences with the client. However, in cases where those consequences are less certain, an attorney is only required to advise the client regarding the possibility of such consequences. This Article discusses what happens when the immigration consequences are too complicated for a criminal attorney to ascertain but the client is indigent and cannot afford to hire an immigration attorney.

Keywords: Padilla, Kentucky, Supreme Court, Sixth Amendment, Right to Counsel, Counsel, Assistance, Effective, indigent, plea, conviction, deportation, criminal, immigration, consequences, attorney

Suggested Citation

Grubman, Scott Robert, I Want My (Immigration) Lawyer! The Necessity of Court-Appointed Immigration Counsel in Criminal Prosecutions after Padilla v. Kentucky (2012). Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 364-394 (2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2038652

Paper statistics

Downloads
35
Abstract Views
391