An immigration case out of Chicago,
Chaidez v USA (1), makes us question who shall receive the benefits of
Constitutional justice and how the community should respond when justice isn’t
applied.
The case is about a woman from Chicago,
Roselva Chaidez, who was born in Mexico.
She has lived in the United States since the 1970s. By many accounts Chaidez was the unwitting
participant in an insurance scam. The
many details of the case are less important than the resulting issues, but it
is clear that she was not involved in any violence and even the fed’s let her
plead guilty and let her off with a fine.
Her lawyer worked the deal for
Chaidez, encouraging her to tell the truth and end the case. He did tell Chaidez about the direct
punishment she could expect by pleading guilty.
What he didn’t tell her is that it would not allow her to apply for
citizenship. It isn’t clear if the
lawyer knew that or not. It should be
expected that if a lawyer makes a strong suggestion that someone like Chaidez
should plead guilty, he would inform her of all the collateral damage that
would result. That is the reason an
expert is hired in any field, to help understand the short and long term consequences.
When Chaidez did apply for
citizenship, she was picked up for deportation.
She was able obtain another lawyer to challenge the case in the
courts. It has found its way to the
Supreme Court.
Chaidez’s new lawyer has built the
case on a ruling by the Supreme Court after Chaidez’s guilty plea and
conviction. At the base for her case is
Padilla v Kentucky. In that case, the
Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens that are not advised that pleading guilty
to a felony means automatic deportation were deprived of their Sixth and
Fourteenth amendment rights to effective counsel. Chaidez’s is the same situation, but since she
pleaded guilty before the Padilla case, the United States is asking that the
conviction stand. The court is being
asked if the ruling only applies to cases after Padilla or should it be
retroactive.
The Obama administration is taking
a hard stand on the issue. The
administration said that, “[it] will have a significant impact on the federal
government’s efforts to enforce this nation’s immigration laws against those
who have become removable as a result of pre-Padilla criminal convictions.”
Groups siding with Chaidez have
taken an equaling strong stand in opposition.
“The lack of remedy,” the groups assert, “[for pre-Padilla ineffective
counsel] imposes harsh consequences on countless non-citizens facing detention
and deportation as a result of wrongfully procured plea-based convictions.” (3)
Whatever the legal arguments are,
there are four practical issues for the community to consider. First, the community can’t tolerate
ineffective counsel for defendants when charged with a crime. Second, while prosecutors have a
responsibility to pursue their cases as aggressively as possible, they also
have a responsibility to keep defendants, who are presumed innocent until
proven guilty, aware of the full
consequences of the charges applied against them. Also, there can be no finality to a case when
Constitutional rights come to light after convictions, such as Supreme Court
rulings that apply directly to the defendant’s case. Finally, being a non-citizens living in the
country doesn’t mean that that you are not protected by the Constitution.
The right to counsel is a Sixth Amendment issue. It clearly states that we all have the right
“to have the Assistance of Counsel for his [her] defence.” (4)
To believe any other way means that people could be picked up and
sentenced to prison with no trial. After
all, if they are guilty until proven innocent, let’s just get them off
the street right away, no need for a trial.
An innocent person has all the
rights and privileges of the community and should expect that the community
will defend them against all threats to their life, safety and freedoms. So, if people are innocent until proven
guilty, the logical responsibility of the community is to assure that they are
properly defended and understand all the consequences if they are found
guilty. The community must be certain
that the lawyer the defendant hires, or is provided, is competent enough to
understand the obligations of providing a proper defense.
As for the prosecution, we expect
the prosecutor to aggressively pursue their case against a defendant. Our system has provided this right to the
prosecutor. But, for every right there is
an equally important responsibility. The
responsibility here is that the prosecutor will insure that the accused is
fully aware of his consequences if convicted of the crime he or she is charged
with.
Once convicted, no matter the
circumstances of the conviction, the case can only be final to factual issues not
Constitutional issues. If a person is
convicted under a law that made his action criminal and is later changed, the convicted
is to receive the benefits of the change.
This prevents laws from being enacted that make an action criminal just to
jail someone, then changed once they are convicted. Why should it be any different for
Constitutional issues? When the Supreme
Court makes a ruling on an issue, it needs to have the same effect as changing
a law.
Perhaps the most difficult issue
for many is the non-citizen status of Chaidez.
The argument may be that since Chaidez is a not a citizen, she doesn’t
have an automatic right to receive the full benefits of the Constitution. (There is a question as to Chaidez’s
immigration status. It is not clear that
she is here “illegally?” But, it doesn’t
matter because of the of the amnesty legislation that has been passed since
Chaidez’s arrival. The only issue that
is important to this case is her non-citizenship status.) All the time that Chaidez was here, she was
expected to follow all the laws that the Constitution allows. Yet, as soon as she runs in to trouble with
the law, she is not given the full benefit of the Constitution. In this case, she didn’t receive a proper
defense as dictated by the Constitution.
This is not the intent of the
authors of the Constitution. They
intended the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to apply to
all. It is simple to say this because of
our own interpretation of the words of the document. But, this time the proof comes from none
other than a founding father. James Madison said, “But a more
direct reply is, that it does not
follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that, whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its
protection. Aliens are not more
parties to the laws than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not
be disputed that, as they owe, on one hand, a temporary
obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their
protection and advantage.” (5)
According to Madison, when someone has the responsibility to
live under the laws of the country, they also have the right to the protection
of the Constitution. This is the very
essence of a Responsible Community; a balance between rights and responsibilities. You can’t have one without the other.
(4) Sixth amendment to the
United States Constitution
