"New" rules, or old school?

Well, maybe you won't be able to challenge a conviction that's this old.

Does a criminal defense attorney have to advise her client about the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction? The Supreme Court said yes, in a case called Padilla v. Kentucky.

The Massachusetts courts agreed, but now the SJC has gone a step further in a recent case: Commonwealth v. Sylvain, SJC-11400. In Sylvain, the court clarified that it's nothing "new" for criminal attorneys to advise their clients about immigration consequences. Attorneys in Massachusetts have been giving their clients this advice for years, and CPCS requires all public defenders and bar advocates to do it.

Because this is not a "new" rule of constitutional rights announced by the Supreme Court, the rule applies retroactively. People who are not U.S. citizens who have been convicted of crimes in the past may now challenge those convictions. They may be able to reverse their convictions if they did not get accurate advice from their lawyers, and if the bad advice affected the outcome of their cases.

 Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that this is a "new" rule for federal purposes. See Chaidez v. United States for details. This means that inaccurate immigration advice from criminal convictions in other states and the federal system may not result in a finding of "ineffective assistance of counsel."

If you have questions about a past criminal conviction and your immigration status, or if you are facing criminal charges and you are not a citizen of the U.S., contact us today to see if we are able to help.

AG Coakley Files Brief Arguing Against DOMA

The Boston Globe reported that Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a decision by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the law violated equal protection rights. Coakley said in statement, "The Defense of Marriage Act is a discriminatory and unconstitutional law that harms thousands of families in Massachusetts and takes away our state's right to extend marriage equality to all couples." DOMA defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, DOMA prevents same-sex couples from qualifying for federal marriage benefits. If the U.S. Supreme Court selects this case, it will be the first time the Court will review a question related to same-sex marriage.

Click here to read the story.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.  

US Supreme Court Rejects Part of Controversial Arizona Immigration Law

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the controversial 2010 Arizona immigration law, but upheld the "show me your papers" provision where state law enforcement will be permitted to question the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if they have reason to suspect the person is here illegally. The Court noted that the provision is open to future legal challenges because of the potential of racial profiling. The Court noted that immigration is regulated by the federal government, and state law cannot preempt such policies. 


Click here to read the full opinion: Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182. 


For more on this story, click here to read an article in The New York Times.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.  

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Two Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases recently. One case involved a widow's claim that her children conceived by her late husband's sperm were entitled to survivor's benefits and the other case held that illegal immigrants cannot take advantage of a parent's lawful residence status when they are charged with crimes subjecting them to deportation, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

In Astrue v. Capato, the Court upheld "the government's multi-part definition of who deserves survivors benefits" in a 9-0 decision. Karen Capato had used sperm her late husband had deposited in a sperm bank to conceive her twins. She argued that the children were entitled to survivors benefits because they qualified as "natural children", despite being born after her husband's death, under the Social Security Act. The Court rejected her claim because regulations "define a 'natural child' as one who could inherit the father's property under state law." The Capatos were residents of Florida where state law specifies that children conceived after a parent's death are not entitled to inherit the late parent's property. The children were not named in their father's will before he passed.

In Holder v. Martinez-Gutierrez, the Court ruled that when illegal immigrants are charged with a crime that exposes them to deportation, they cannot take advantage of their parent's lawful residence. The Court held that "individuals must hear their own leniency through years of lawful residence."

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.  

Appeals Court Rules on Prop. 8 in California

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its decision that Proposition 8, the law banning same-sex marriage in California, violates due process and equal protection.

The decision today stated, "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," and "The constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort."

Supporters of the same-sex marriage ban have vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court could agree to hear the case when its session begins in October 2012. 

For more on this story, click here. 

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.  

Supreme Court Considers Whether Padilla Ruling Can Apply Retroactively

The United States Supreme Court will decide whether its ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, that immigrant defendants are entitled to effective counsel in criminal cases applies retroactively to criminal cases decided before the 2009 Padilla ruling.   This is significant for immigrants who have criminal convictions before 2009 and whose defense counsel did not advise them of the important immigration consequences of a guilty plea.  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled last year in Commonwealth v. Clarke that Padilla applied retroactively in Massachusetts and that criminal defendants who were not adequately advised of the immigration consequences of their plea may be entitled to a new trial.  However, the Supreme Court may now have the final say on the matter.   See Chaidez v. United States, No. 11-820.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters. 

US Supreme Court Decision: Vartelas v. Holder

The US Supreme Court held that a lawful permanent resident who was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) has a right to reenter the United States after a short period of time travelling abroad. In this case, the Court concluded that the IIRIRA does not govern a pre-1996 criminal conviction - the appropriate application of the law would be the legal regime in force at the time of the conviction. 


For more, click here to read Vartelas v. Holder. 


Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.  

US Supreme Court: Ineffective Counsel Claims Can Be Brought Up At Plea Level

The United States Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to effective counsel during the plea negotiating stage. The rulings in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye effectively expand the rights of the accused for "what used to be informal and unregulated deal making," according to The New York Times.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented because the ruling "opens a whole new boutique of constitutional jurisprudence" that he referred to as "plea-bargaining law" - a point that was acknowledged by the majority.  However, Justice Kennedy said "Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials...The right to adequate assistance of counsel cannot be defined or enforced without taking account of the central role plea bargaining takes in securing convictions and determining sentences."

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.  

US Supreme Court Hears Case on Social Security Benefits and In Vitro Fertilization

NPR reported that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case on Monday where the issue is "whether children conceived via in vitro fertilization after the death of the parent are eligible for Social Security benefits." Currently, there are 100 pending cases before the Social Security Administration that fall under such category. 


The case before the Supreme Court involves the twin children of Karen and Robert Capato. Mr. Capato died of esophageal cancer in early 2002. When Mr. Capato's condition had worsened after his diagnosis, the couple decided that he should deposit sperm at a fertility clinic because they wanted their son to have siblings. After Mr. Capato's death, Mrs. Capato used her husband's sperm to become pregnant and gave birth to twins. 


The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that the twins are not eligible for survivors benefits because they were conceived after the death of a parent. A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled in favor of Karen Capato because here was a case "where medical-scientific technology had advanced faster than the regulatory process." The government appealed the case, arguing "that posthumously conceived children fall outside the class of children entitled to survivors benefits because 'they were brought into being by a surviving parent with the knowledge that the deceased biological parent will not be able to contribute wages for their support.'" Capato's lawyers have argued that the language of the 1939 Social Security Act defines a child "as biological offspring of a married couple," and that any children of the individual would be eligible to receive survivors benefits, regardless of when they were conceived. 

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.  

Allegations Arise Against ICE: Did the Government Lie to the Supreme Court?

Washington Square Legal Services, Inc. (WSLS) alleges that the Office of the Solicitor General may have lied in front of the Supreme Court in a 2009 case (Nken v. Holder) as to whether the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had a policy in place for returning individuals who had been wrongfully deported. WSLS issued a press release on March 9, 2012, stating that a new memo from ICE dated February 24, 2012, demonstrated that there was no government policy in place to return wrongfully deported individuals in 2009 and raises more questions than answers about how ICE deals with these cases. 


"It includes no concrete information on how people wrongfully deported are to be returned to the United States. Instead, this memo seems designed to help the government convince courts that it has a polic in place, when all other evidence points to the contrary," said Jessica Chicco of the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project at Boston College. 


ICE claimed that the policy has always existed but the latest February directive does not provide effective relief  measures nor does it provide a procedural framework. The directive also failed to explain how the government would communicate with individuals who have been wrongfully deported how they could return to the United States, particularly for individuals who do not have legal representation in the U.S. 


Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters. 

Supreme Court Ruled on GPS Tracking Devices

The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court decided on Monday that a Global Positioning Device (GPS) tracking system placed on a suspect's car by police violated his Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The Court ruled unanimously  on this decision, with the majority agreeing with the rationale that the issue was the placement of the GPS device on private property.

The case, United States v. Jones, involved a Washington nightclub owner who was suspected of participating in a cocaine-selling operation. Antoine Jones's movements were tracked for a month when police placed the GPS device on his Jeep Grand Cherokee without obtaining a valid warrant. Jones had been sentenced to life in prison based on the evidence gathered by police, including the information gathered by the GPS.

Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion, stated "The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."

Justice Alito, who concurred with the majority on the ruling, differed on the rationale: "We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely cross before the 4-week mark. Other cases may present more difficult questions."

The lawyer for the defendant in this case said the ruling was a "signal event in Fourth Amendment history," according to the article.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters. 

The Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Quintuple Murder Case Due To Prosecutorial Misconduct

The New York Times reported today that The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of New Orleans man who had been found guilty of murdering five people. The Court held that prosecutors should have released key evidence to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, another Supreme Court decision from 1963, where prosecutors are required "to provide favorable evidence to the defense."

The killings occurred in 1995 when a group of men ambushed a home in order to steal drugs and money. The occupants of the home were forced to lie down and shot to death. Juan Smith was the only person tried in the killings. The prosecution based its case on Larry Boatner, the lone survivor, who presented eyewitness testimony during the trial. Boatner testified "I'll never forget him" as he pointed to Smith. There was no DNA evidence, fingerprints, weapons, or other physical evidence presented at trial to link Smith to the killings.

Later, reports emerged that the prosecution withheld important evidence from the defense where Boatner had stated in interviews soon after the murders that he could not describe the group of men who entered the home, that he had not seen their faces, and would not be able to identify them. Smith's attorney in the Supreme Court case said "the withheld statements from Mr. Boatner 'constitute the epitome of impeachment evidence.'"

The Court had to determine "only whether the failure [to release the evidence] mattered - that is, in the words of a 2009 decision, whether 'there is a reasonable probability that. had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'"

The Supreme Court voted in an 8-1 decision that the withheld statements were "plainly material" to the outcome of the case.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.

The Credibility of Memory in Court

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last month about the reliability of witness testimony in case where a New Hampshire man was convicted of theft. The most persuasive evidence in that trial was an eyewitness account of a woman who claimed she saw the man from a distance at night. While the Court showed skepticism about whether there needs to be an additional safeguard in the law addressing the unreliability of witness testimony, a lawyer for the New Hampshire man argued that eyewitness testimony contributes to 75 percent of wrongful convictions.

Indeed, scientific research on the reliability of memory and its role in the criminal justice system has shown that witness testimony should be viewed as a general sketch of a story instead of a precise recording of events, according to a report in The New York Times. Studies conducted over 20 years support the notion that instead of serving as "the centerpiece of prosecution," eyewitness testimony needs to be handled with "the same fragility and vulnerability to contamination," in order to make such testimony more reliable in court. 

Some researchers said that witnesses are being asked questions by police and in courtrooms that are not possible to answer with complete accuracy because human brains "are not wired to retain every facet of an event." Even in crimes involving weapons, witnesses tend to focus closely on the weapon, remembering those details with accuracy, but will not notice other details present during the event. 

Many wrongful convictions are based on suspect lineups. Gary Wells, a psychology professor at Iowa State University, and his team researched whether a witness is likely to select accurately a suspect from a traditional lineup versus a lineup where various suspects are shown to the witness in sequential order. Dr. Wells' report showed that a traditional lineup is less accurate because "if the real perpetrator is not in there, there is still someone who looks more like him than the others," according to the article. 

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Children Can Count Parents' Time in the US in Immigration Court

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether immigrant children can count the time that their parents were in the United States to establish the residency requirements to obtain relief from deportation in Immigration Court. Legal permanent residents in deportation proceedings generally must establish seven years residence before the Immigration Court proceedings commenced to be eligible for relief from deportation. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (California and the Northwest) has ruled that the time that an immigrant child's parents have been residents in the United States can be counted in determining the length of stay for the child's legal status. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Massachusetts and New England) has not ruled on this question. The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from the Attorney General from the Ninth Circuit's decision. If upheld, some children of legal permanent residents will be eligible to remain in the United States who would otherwise be liable for deportation.
Contact the immigration attorneys of Glickman Turley LLP for a consultation regarding your elegibility for relief from deportation.  You may speak with an attorney in English, Spanish, or Portuguese.