Padilla v. Kentucky has been getting a lot of play. Some PD’s are scared of it, wondering how it will add on to their case load, private criminal defense attorneys don’t understand it, wondering how it will play out in post-conviction proceedings. I think a lot of us are scared and confused, but applaud it for what it intends to do – bring some semblance of fairness to the immigration process. You are not entitled to appointed counsel in an immigration case. If you have been to immigration court, you see how it plays out. People are there without counsel. They may be entitled to relief. But, they are there alone. They agree to leave voluntarily. It’s a sad sight to behold.
Picture this: You came here when you were 6 months old. You are a legal permanent resident. You are married to a citizen. You have a very good job. You have kids. You can be deported. You are not entitled to a lawyer in that immigration proceeding. If you were arrested and you plead guilty (and don’t think it can’t happen to you, Mr. “I am a law abiding citizen”) and your lawyer didn’t tell you that you could be deported, in some states, there wasn’t much you could do. Now, you may have a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. How can that be bad?
Gideon v. Wainwright was a big freaking deal. It turned the world upside down. People were all a flutter, how will we handle this? How will this shake out? How much more work will there be for us to do? But it turned out to be, in the words of Martha, a very good thing. This, too, is a very good thing. My hope is that it brings us a step closer to having a real right to counsel in immigration proceedings. It would make the whole process a bit more fair. And fair is better.
