# Amicus Curiae Brief — INS v. St. Cyr > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_1327%3A11 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2001 - **Citation:** 533 U.S. 289 ## Text MAR AX 7eCo( Mi I FILED } No. 00-767 MAR 28 200} In The OFFICE. OF THE CLERK Supreme Court of the United States . IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, } Petitioner, ENRICO ST. CYR, Respondent. + On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit ¢ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, ASSOCIATION OF FEDERAL DEFENDERS, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, COOK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, DIVISION OF PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, FLORIDA PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND DEFENDER ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, NEW YORK STATE DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, PUBLIC DEFENDER OF FLORIDA’S ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WASHINGTON DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT + JosHua L. Drare Manuet D. VarGcas* Co-Chair, SEAL R. Zota Amicus Committee CRIMINAL DEFENSE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF CRIMINAL New York STATE DereNse LAWYERS DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION 14 Wall Street, 28th Floor P.O. Box 20058, New York, New York 10005 West Village Station New York, New York 10014 (212) 367-9104 *Counsel of Record Me BEST AVAILABLE COPY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page pet ge iy 8 i). er reo err iii INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE. .......6..6004. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT |. .....2..ss0cneecsedess 2 SPIES, Sarde bocdpvkedds pee ceacebich bebe a I. LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT IMMI- GRANTS RELIED ON THE RIGHT TO SEEK RELIEF FROM DEPORTATION WHEN PLEAD- ING GUILTY PRIOR TO THE 1996 AMEND- i POLE CPE eT PeTe TE eT ST TT ETT eo rae 4 A. Lawful Permanent Resident Immigrants Convicted Prior To The 1996 Amendments Had A Statutory Right To Seek Relief From PP EEO TET ETE TE TOOT ee ~ B. Pre-1996 Practice Aids Informed Defense Lawyers Regarding the Immigration Impli- cations of Conviction Including the Right of Long-Term Lawful Permanent Resident Immigrants to Seek Relief from Deportation TPR rere PIC E Cl Fe Sees ey OE Tre Peer re 6 C. Training Programs Further Alerted Defense Lawyers to the Immigration Implications of Conviction and to Relief from Deporta- PE PPPOE Peer ys Cee TE ye ree Terr ree 8 D. In-House or Outside Experts Also Advised Defense Lawyers Regarding the Immigra- tion Implications of Conviction and Relief SOY RIS hints hk Gadd a cea ne end ncc 10 ij a TABLE OF CONTENTS —- Continued Page E. Lawful Resident Immigrants Pled Guilty in Reasonable Reliance on the Advice of their Lawyers and Others that They Had a Right to Seek Relief from Deportation. .......... 11 II. THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT’S APPLICATION OF THE 1996 AMENDMENTS TO PRE- AMENDMENT GUILTY PLEAS IS IMPERMISSI- BLY RETROACTIVE Examples of specialized manuals that have been prepared for defense lawyers since 1996 are: Norton Tooby with Katherine A. Brady, Criminal Defense of Immigrants (Law Offices of Norton Tooby, National Ed., 1999); Maria Baldini-Potermin, Defending Non-citizens in Minnesota Courts: A Summary of Immigration Law and Client Scenarios (Minnesota Bar Association, 1998 — 2000); Manuel D. Vargas, Representing Noncitizen Criminal Defendants in New York State (New York State 19 and resources underscore how different would have been the advice defense lawyers gave to a noncitizen client considering a guilty plea in the past if they knew that what then seemed to be a favorable plea deal would now trigger mandatory deportation. For example, in its commentary to its new plea standards, the ABA observed: The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), in the wake of the 1996 amendments . . . constitutes a great threat to non-citizen defendants who are considering a plea of guilty . .. The expansion of the “aggravated felony” list is significant because conviction of an aggravated felony generally means certain and speedy deportation given that the defendant will not, under the statute, be eli- gible for most discretionary relief from removal. Under the amended INA, then, a plea deal that might otherwise seem attractive — for example, a suspended 1-year sentence for misdemeanor theft — may often look considerably different once it is determined that that plea would in fact be deemed an “aggravated” felony conviction leading to the alien client’s swift deportation. Id., Standard 14-1.4(c), commentary at 58, n.96 (1999).6 Indeed, if deportation had been a certainty, rather than the calculated risk it was before the 1996 amend- ments, lawful resident immigrant defendants would have Defenders Association, lst and 2nd eds., 1998, 2000). In addition, several new state-based initiatives have been established to provide training and consultation resources for defense lawyers. 6 Several recent court decisions confirm the ABA’s conclusion that even a guilty plea to a misdemeanor theft offense —- which might have been a good plea deal from a defense perspective in the past - could now be deemed an “aggravated felony.” See, e.g., Erewele v. Reno, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11765 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (held that “aggravated felony” term includes conviction of a misdemeanor shoplifting offense with suspended sentence of twelve months in prison). 20 been much less likely to plead guilty in many circum- stances. Before agreeing to plead guilty, many specifically asked their defense lawyers what chance they would have of being granted relief from deportation, and then weighed the likelihood of deportation just as they weighed other aspects of a plea offer, such as the probable sentence, the availability of parole, and the overall disruption that the plea would cause to themselves and their families. Sadly, those lawful permanent residents who tended to rely the most on the possibility of a waiver of deportation were those with the strongest equities, e.g., individuals who had lived virtually their entire lives in the United States, whose family members were all in the United States, or who had served in the U.S. military. Even if such a permanent resident had no prior criminal record and the evidence of guilt was weak, he or she might nevertheless have pled guilty based on information or advice that deportation would not be automatic and that they would have a good chance of having their 212(c) application granted if they could demonstrate those very same factors — family, job, residence, etc. — that made it more likely that the lawyer would be able to negotiate a plea with little or no jail time.” 7 Many courts have concluded that tne possibility of a waiver of deportation could be a critical factor in the plea- bargaining process. See, e.g., Tasios, 204 F.3d at 551 (“[P]rior to the passage of AEDPA the legal effect of pleading guilty .. . was mitigated by the realistic possibility of obtaining a waiver under § 212(c)”); Mattis v. Reno, 212 F.3d 31, 39-40 (1st Cir. 2000) (“[T]here is reason to believe that there might be some aliens who [entered guilty pleas before April 1996] in actual and reasonable reliance on the availability of § 212(c) relief”); Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 612 (9th Cir. 1999) (“That an alien charged with a crime involving controlled substances would factor the immigration consequences of conviction in deciding whether to plead or proceed to trial is well- documented”). 21 In sum, the experience of amici is that, prior to the 1996 amendments, our lawful resident immigrant clients understood that deportation was generally not automatic upon conviction of a deportable offense. Our lawful resi- dent clients often pled guilty in reliance on this under- standing when they could have gone to trial or made other choices in their criminal case in order to seek to avoid mandatory deportation had they had notice of what future legislation would bring. Il. THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT’S APPLICATION OF THE 1996 AMENDMENTS TO PRE-AMENDMENT GUILTY PLEAS IS IMPERMISSIBLY RETROAC- TIVE The criminal justice system relies heavily on the will- ingness of individuals to plead guilty and forego their right to a jury trial. In fact, more than 90 percent of criminal convictions today are obtained by guilty plea. See Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Section 5: Judicial Processing of Defendants, Tables 5.30, 5.51 in Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1999, (2000) (over 95 percent of federal convictions and over 91 percent of fel- ony convictions in state court are obtained by guilty plea). Without this willingness of the criminally accused to plead guilty, the wheels of justice would most certainly grind to a screeching halt. As the Court has stated: The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, some- times loosely called “plea bargaining,” is an essential component of the administration of jus- tice. Properly administered, it is to be encour- aged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Govern- ment would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 260 (1971). 22 Given the importance of the rights relinquished when an individual agrees to plead guilty,’ the integrity and fairness of the plea bargaining process requires strict application of rules to protect the expectations underlying the plea.? These include not only the Ex Post Facto Clause 8 Those accused of crimes who agree to plead guilty - sometimes even when innocent of the criminal charges — give up fundamental rights at the core of our nation’s Bill of Rights. They give up not only their right to a trial by a jury of their peers, Duncan v. Lousiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), but also their rights to confront one’s accusers, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965), to present witnesses in one’s defense Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), to remain silent, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964), and to be convicted by proof beyond all reasonable doubt, In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Recognizing the significance of an individual’s agreement to plead guilty, the Court has recognized the importance of counsel during plea negotiations, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 758 (1970), the need for a public record indicating that a plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969), and the requirement that a prosecutor’s plea bargaining promise be kept, Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262. 9 Retroactive application of mandatory deportation provisions compromises the integrity of the plea bargaining process by disrupting the legitimate expectations not only of the noncitizen defendant but also of other actors in the criminal justice system. For example, retroactive application of new laws to change the legal effect of a guilty plea ur:dermines the efforts of defense attorneys who try to comply with ethical standards and to provide effective counsel to noncitizen defendants regarding the consequences — both direct and indirect - of a plea. Ironically, those defense attorneys who made the best efforts to provide effective counsel on the immigration implications of guilty pleas are the attorneys whose clients may have most relied on the availability of relief from deportation. In addition, retroactive application undermines the expectations of prosecutors who may have agreed to a lesser or alternative plea, or a lenient sentence, prior to the 1996 amendments with the expectation that it would allow the defendant to return sooner to his or her home and family in the United States. See Harmelin 23 prohibition on retroactive application of later “punitive” legislation, but also the presumption against retroactivity of other subsequently enacted laws that change the conse- quences of the plea, even if the new laws are not deemed punitive in nature. As the Court has stated: The presumption against the retroactive applica- tion of new laws is an essential thread in the mantle of protection that the law affords the individual citizen ... . In both the civil and the criminal context, the Constitution places limits on the sovereign’s ability to use its lawmaking power to modify bargains it has made with its subjects. The basic principle is one that protects not only the rich and the powerful, but also the indigent defendant engaged in negotiations that may lead to an acknowledgment of guilt and a suitable punishment. Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 439-440 (1997) (emphasis added).1° v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1008 (1991) (prosecutorial discretion allows for consideration of individualized circumstances to ameliorate the effect of mandatory sentences). Likewise, retroactive application of mandatory deportation laws also undermines the expectations of a trial judge who accepted a plea or imposed a sentence also with the expectation that the defendant would be permitted to return to home and famuily. 10 Although the Court here need not reach the background constitutional issues implicated by retroactive applications of new rules to past conduct, amici note that this case does raise Due Process Clause concerns. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. 244, 266 (“The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legislation”). In addition, were the Court not to apply the traditional presumption against retroactivity, this case would provide an appropriate vehicle for the Court to reconsider the current viability of its prior decisions holding that deportation laws are not subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Robert Pauw, A New Look at Deportation as Punishment: Why at Least 24 In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), the Court reaffirmed the traditional presumption against retroactivity. The Court stated that the inquiry as to whether application of a new statute would have imper- missible retroactive effect requires a “common sense, func- tional judgment about ‘whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.’” Id. at 269. The determination is guided by “familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.” Id. One way that application of a new statute to past events will be found to have retroac- tive effect is if it “takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past... . ” Id. (quoting Justice Story in Society for Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler, 22 F. Cas. 756, No. 13,156 (C.C.D.N.H. 1814)). The government's application of the 1996 deportation relief bars to lawful permanent residents convicted of com- mitting deportable offenses prior to the new law unques- tionably eliminates a legal right — eligibility to apply for 212(c) relief from deportation — or attaches a new disability - ineligibility to apply — based on criminal conduct and convictions that occurred in the past. Under prior law, : convicted long-time lawful permanent residents faced pos- | sible, but not certain, deportation. However, if the 1996 amendments are applied to them, their statutory right to seek 212(c) relief is taken away and deportation becomes virtually inevitable. The government's position changes a possibility of deportation into a certainty of deportation. The Court’s retroactivity jurisprudence establishes that such a change in legal risk has impermissible retroac- tive effect when applied to prior conduct or transactions even if the new law does not change the maximum extent of a party’s liability. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Company v. PP a Sf ee BO Some of the Constitution’s Criminal Procedure Protections Must Apply, 52 Adm. L.R. 305 (Winter 2000). 25 United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (1997) (finding retroactive effect when a 1986 amendment was applied to cause a private party to lose a°prior defense against pri- vate suits for submitting a false claim to the government, even though elimination of the defense in question did not increase the defendant's liability exposure because the defense had never been available in suits brought by gov- ernment litigators). Moreover, the Court’s Ex Post Facto Clause case law, to which the Court turns to determine what civil as well as criminal law consequences have a genuine retroactive effect,11 has long recognized the retroactive effect of a change from a discretionary penalty system to a system of mandatory penalties. See Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. ‘Marrero, 417 U.S. 653, 663 (1974) (held that a statute elim- inating parole eligibility for offenses subject to parole under the law at the time of commission was impermissi- ble as an ex post facto law); Lindsey v. Washington, 301 US. 397 (1937) (held that a statute changing a maximum sen- tence to a mandatory sentence for offense committed prior to the statute’s enactment is an impermissible ex post facto law). In Lindsey, the Court stated: Removal of the possibility of a sentence of less than fifteen years . . . operates to their detriment in the sense that the standard of punishment adopted by the new statute is more onerous than that of the old . . . . We need not inquire whether this is technically an increase in the punishment annexed to the crime... . It is plainly to the substantial disadvantage of petitioners to be deprived of all opportunity to receive a sentence which would give them freedom from custody and control prior to the expiration of the 15 year term. 11 See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft, 520 U.S. at 94&fciting Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) and Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 (1925)); Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269 n. 23 (citing Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (1987)). 26 Id. at 401-02 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).!2 Sim- ilarly, taking away the statutory right to apply for discre- tionary 212(c) deportation relief, thus making deportation mandatory, must be considered retrospective. See Tasios, 204 F.3d at 552 (“As cases decided under the Ex Post Facto Clause establish, any change of outcomes from a discre- tionary relief to one of prescribed outcomes is retroac- tive”). The change in the legal consequence of pre-amend- ment guilty pleas here is graphically illustrated by the disruption of the reasonable reliance of lawful resident immigrants on prior law, as described in Point I above. Reasonable reliance on prior law is a hallmark indicator of whether a new law has retroactive effect. See Landgraf , 511 U.S. at 282-83 (a “legal change that would have an impact on private parties’ planning” operates retrospectively). Thus, not surprisingly, a growing number of courts have found that the government’s application of new deporta- tion laws barring 212(c) relief is impermissibly retroactive based on the reasonable reliance of lawful permanent resi- dent immigrants on their eligibility under the law at the time they were convicted.}5 12 See also Lynce, 519 U.S. 433 (held that cancellation of provisional early release credits awarded to alleviate prison overcrowding was a retroactive effect in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause); Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) (held that a new law repealing an earlier statute and reducing amount of “gain time” for good conduct and obedience to prison rules deducted from a convicted prisoner’s sentence violated Ex Post Facto Clause). 13 For example, the Fourth Circuit last year retreated from its prior decision in De Osorio v. INS, 10 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir. 1993), in which the court had suggested that the possibility of a waiver of deportation was not relevant to noncitizen decision-making in the criminal process, stating: “[W]Je conclude that the observations made in De Osorio do not account for the essential retroactive consequences of removing the availability of 212(c) relief.” Tasios, 204 F.3d at 551. The Fourth Circuit found that —————— ———— — 27 In sum, many lawful permanent residents pled guilty in specific reliance on the real promise of avoiding depor- tation offered by the statutory right to apply for 212(c) relief, or in general reliance on knowledge that there would be some consideration of the equities in their cases before any government decision to carry out a deportation. As discussed in Point III below, such reliance is not neces- sary to show the retroactive effect of the government’s application of AEDPA Section 440(d) and IIRIRA Section 304(b). Nevertheless, the reasonable reliance on prior law confirms and illustrates the retroactive effect of the appli- cation of these new laws to pre-enactment pleas. Thus, the Court should affirm the lower court’s application of the presumption against retroactivity at least with respect to lawful resident immigrants who agreed to plead guilty - prior to the new laws.'4 AEDPA 440(d) would upset reasonable, settled expectations and change the legal effect of prior conduct if applied to guilty pleas before AEDPA’s effective date, and thus should not be applied to any case based on a pre-AEDPA guilty plea. As the Fourth Circuit explained: “By withdrawing the availability of [§ 212(c)] relief, AEDPA § 440(d) worked a fundamental change in the legal effect of such a plea... .” Id. at 552 (emphasis added). 14 Although the court below limited the extent of its holding to individuals who pled guilty prior to the 1996 amendments, lawful permanent resident immigrants also relied on the availability of relief from deportation in making other choices during criminal proceedings, such as a decision to reject an offered plea deal and go to trial where relief eligibility existed under prior law even if the individual was found guilty after trial of the more serious charged offense, or a decision to fight certain charges more than others at trial, or a decision not to appeal a conviction after trial. Thus, although the choice whether to plead guilty is one of the most important decisions a defendant faces, it is by no means the only choice that may be affected by the availability of relief from deportation. 28 | Ill. IN ANY EVENT, THE GOVERNMENT'S APPLICA- TION OF THE 1996 AMENDMENTS TO THE | UNDERLYING ORIGINAL CONDUCT IS IMPER- MISSIBLY RETROACTIVE In order to determine whether application of a new law to past conduct has an impermissible retroactive effect, what matters is simply “whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269-270. Princi- ples of fair warning require no less. As the Court stated in Landgraf. Elementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly; .. . . For that reason, the “principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal c appeal.” 4 Id., at 265 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. | Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 855 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring)). Thus, in Landgraf and other cases where the Court has analyzed whether a new civil statute has impermissible ; retroactive effect, the essential question is not whether the 4 person later expressly relied on a given understanding of the 1..., but whether applying the new law to the original past conduct changes the consequences of that conduct. See id. at 283-284 (finding retroactive effect of new punitive and compensatory damages and jury trial provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 even though there was no finding of reliance on prior law and the sexual harassment conduct at issue was already illegal at the time of the conduct); Rivers v. Roadway Exp. Inc., 511 U.S. 298 (1994) (finding retroactive effect of new right of action for dis- criminatory contract terminations in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 even though the parties believed that the right of action existed when they acted and therefore they could not have relied on prior law); Hughes Aircraft, 520 U.S. at 948 (finding retroactive effect when a private party lost a 29 defense against private suits for submitting a false claim to the government, even though the private party never had such a defense against a government suit and there was no showing that the party relied on the government failing to pursue a suit). The Court's retroactivity analysis in its ex post facto decisions also focus on whether applying the new law at issue to past conduct changes the legal consequence of the original criminal conduct, rather than on whether the affected individual later acted in reliance on prior law. In these decisions, the crucial benchmark for determining retroactive effect of new penalties for criminal conduct is the law that was in existence on the date of that original conduct, as opposed to the law on the date of plea or conviction. See, e.g., Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (1987) (found retroactive effect when the government applied revised sentencing guidelines that went into effect between the date of the petitioner’s offense and the date of his conviction); see also Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (held that original criminal conduct, not a subse- quent violation of supervised release, was the operative event for retroactivity analysis). This is true even if the new statute applies only upon “conviction.” See Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U.S. at 398, rev’g State v. Lindsey, 61 P.2d 293, 294 (Wash. 1936) (court found retroactive effect when the government applied a new sentencing statute that was triggered “[w]hen a person is convicted” to an individual who committed offense on April 15, 1935, even though criminal proceedings did not commence until after the new law was enacted on June 12, 1935). In short, the Court’s decisions in both the civil and criminal contexts recognize that people have a right to know the possible legal consequences of their actions at. the time of their original conduct, whether or not they will be able to demonstrate subsequent acts in reliance on that knowledge. Indeed, it would be contrary to our system of justice, not to mention largely unfeasible and tremen- dously burdensome, for persons to have to prove actual individual reliance on prior law before they can avoid the | | —E 30 ‘adverse consequences of a new law. Rather, in our system of justice, it is presumed that a person acts in light of the law at the time of his or her actions. As one U.S. district judge stated: Individuals are presumed to act against a back- : drop of legal obligations. If they were not, there would be little problem with the retrospective application of many laws; there are likely to be few instances of an individual poring over a statute book before acting. “Whether or not the operative conduct might have been different, the immigrant has a presumptive right to the imposi- tion of only those consequences which could have attached at the time he committed his act.” Pena-Rosario v. Reno, 83 F. Supp.2d 349, 366 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (quoting Maria v. McElroy, 68 F. Supp.2d 206, 229 (E.D.N.Y., 1999)). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the decision of the court below. Respectfully submitted, JosHuA L. DRATEL National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers MaANue.L D. Varcas* SEJAL R. Zora New York State Defenders Association *Counsel of Record (Other Organizations Listed in Appendix A) App. 1 APPENDIX A: ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENTS OF INTEREST The National Association of Criminal Defense Law- yers (NACDL) is a nationwide, nonprofit voluntary asso- ciation of criminal defense lawyers founded in 1958 with a membership of more than 10,000 attorneys. NACDL is affiliated with 80 state and local criminal defense organi- zations with which it works cooperatively on issues related to criminal defense. Thus, it speaks for more than 28,000 criminal defense lawyers nationwide. The Association of Federal Defenders (AFD) was formed in 1995 to enhance the representation provided under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A, and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The AFD is a nationwide, nonprofit, volunteer organization whose membership includes attorneys and support staff of the Federal Defender Offices. One of the AFD’s mis- sions is to file amicus curiae briefs to ensure that the positions of indigent habeas corpus petitioners previously convicted of criminal offenses are adequately repre- sented. The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) has a membership of over 3,000 public defenders and private defense counsel. The CPDA attorney mem- bers act as legal counsel for over 95 percent of the indi- gents accused of criminal conduct in California. The - CPDA, established in 1969, is the state-designated con- tinuing legal education provider for all local public defender offices in the state of California, and also repre- - gents the interests of CPDA’s criminal defense attorney App. 2 members in legislative and significant issues at the appel- late court levels. Due to the numerous and complex immigration laws and regulations, criminal prosecutions and convictions can and do have serious adverse conse- quences for a substantial percentage of the defendants represented by our member attorneys, and thus the CPDA and its members have great interest in the out- come of this case. The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), the Massachusetts public defender agency, is statutorily mandated to provide counsel to indigent defendants in Massachusetts criminal proceedings. G.L. c. 211D, §5. The issue presented in this case is of immediate importance to CPCS because many of its clients’ criminal cases are resolved by a guilty plea or by an admission to sufficient facts. In addition, because many of its clients are no‘ citizens of the United States. their guilty pleas have sig- nificant immigration consequences. As a result, CPCS attorneys are trained, and then required to advise clients not only of the nature of the plea colloquy, the constitu- tional rights they are giving up in pleading guilty, and the effect of the plea, but also the potential consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the Unitec States, or denial of naturalization. See M.G.L. c. 278 § 29D; CPCS Performance Standards. The Cook County Public Defender’s Office is an independent Cook County agency operating within the largest unified court system in the world. Services are provided by Administrative, Chicago, Suburban and Countywide Operations with multiple offices located in Chicago, Illinois, and five adjacent suburbs. The office employs 567 lawyers and provides legal representation to App. 3 nearly 400,000 people annually who cannot afford to hire a private lawyer, in adult criminal cases and appeals resulting from conviction. Because of the diversity of Cook County’s population, a large percentage of the Office’s clients are not United States citizens. The Division of Public Defender Services of the State of Connecticut is a statewide public defender sys- tem responsible for providing legal representation to indigent persons in adult criminal cases, juvenile delin- quency matters, habeas corpus proceedings, and appeals. The Division represents individuals in approximately - 75,000 cases annually before the Connecticut courts. Attorneys in the Division handle approximately 75% of all cases in the 13 Judicial Districts and one-third of all cases in the 22 Geographical Areas of the Superior Court, as well as a significant percentage of cases before the Connecticut Supreme and Appellate courts. The Division of Public Defender Services is an independent agency of the State of Connecticut. The Florida Public Defender Association consists of the State of Florida’s twenty elected Public Defenders. Florida’s Public Defenders have a constitutional and stat- utory duty to represent poor people accused of crimes in Florida’s courts. The Florida Public Defender Association has an interest in matters affecting the administration of justice and the practice of criminal defense in the State of Florida. Florida is the state with the third highest percent- age of immigrants among its population, with more than eighteen percent of Florida’s fifteen million people born outside the country. App. 4 The Los Angeles County Public Defender is the primary trial counsel in the County of Los Angeles, Cali- fornia for all persons charged with crimes who are indi- gent and unable to afford private counsel. The Office is the largest office of trial counsel for criminal defendants in the State of California, with over six hundred trial lawyers. The Office represents tens of thousands of defendants each year in criminal proceedings who are long-term permanent resident immigrants. In addition, the Office is involved in post-conviction litigation in cases where long-term permanent resident immigrants are facing mandatory deportation as a result of the 1996 amendments to the deportation laws. The National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) is a private, non-profit membership organiza- tion based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1911, the NLADA is the only national organization devoted solely to assuring the delivery of high quality legal services to poor people. The NLADA often appears as an amicus party on issues of broad concern that address the consti- tutional right to counsel and equal access to and fairness in the judicial system. Its national membership includes members of the indigent defense and civil legal service bars, and professionals who provide related services. Many of the nation’s public defender organizations, as well as assigned counsel and private criminal defense practitioners, are NLADA members. NLADA member lawyers have also represented thousands of long-term lawful permanent resident immigrants in criminal pro- ceedings. App. 5 The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NYSACDL) is a non-profit member- ship organization of more than 1,100 attorneys who prac- tice criminal defense law in the State of New York. Its purpose is to assist, educate, and provide support to the criminal defense bar to enable them to better serve the interest of their clients and to enhance their professional standing. The New York State Defenders Association (NYSDA) is a non-profit membership association of more than 1,300 public defenders, legal aid attorneys, assigned counsel, and other persons throughout the State of New York. Its objectives are to improve the quality of public defense services in the state, establish standards for prac- tice in the representation of poor people, and engage in a statewide program of community legal education. Among other initiatives, NYSDA operates the Criminal Defense Immigration Project, which provides public defender, legal aid, and assigned counsel program lawyers with legal research and consultation, publications, and train- ing on issues involving the interplay between criminal and immigration law. The Public Defender of Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Honorable Bennett H. Brummer, is the elected state constitutional officer charged with representing poor people accused of crimes in Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade is Florida’s most populous county, and the Office of the Public Defender employs 200 lawyers to handle approximately 90,000 cases a year. In many of those cases, attorneys are called upon-to advise clients of the potential immigration consequences of plea bargains. Half of Miami-Dade County’s more than two million App. 6 residents were born outside the United States, and Miami-Dade has the highest immigration rate of any urban county nationwide. The Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association is an organization of more than 2,300 attorneys in Texas who represent people accused of crimes. The application of immigration laws to criminal convictions affects a large number of the clients of Association members who are not citizens of the United States. Since Texas is a border state, Association members regularly represent immi- grants. The retroactive application of the immigration laws has exposed many Association members to com- plaints and disciplinary hearings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. For these reasons, the outcome of this case is of critical interest to Association members. The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York is a private, non-profit legal services agency that represents poor New York City residents who cannot afford to hire a lawyer. The Criminal Defense Division, the largest divi- sion of The Society, employs more than 400 attorneys. Since 1965, the Division has been the primary public defender for indigent persons who are prosecuted for crimes in state courts in New York City. In fiscal year 1999, the Division represented more than 180,000 clients in New York, Kings, Queens, and Bronx counties. Because of the diversity of the New York City population, a large percentage of the Division’s clients are not United States citizens. The Washington Defender Association (WDA) is a non-profit membership organization comprised of public defenders, assigned counsel and legal aid attorneys App. 7 throughout the State of Washington. WDA’s mission is to promote, assist and encourage public defense systems which ensure that all accused persons in every court receive effective assistance of counsel. In recognition of the severe immigration consequences that may result to noncitizen defendants, the WDA operates the Washington Defenders Immigration Project (WDIP). WDIP provides case-by-case technical assistance and training to public defenders and assigned counsel representing noncitizen clients throughout Washington State. App. 8 APPENDIX B: PARTIAL LIST OF PRE-APRIL 1996 PUB- LICATIONS AND PRACTICE MATERIALS ON THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS NATIONAL MANUALS/TREATISES/PRACTICE MATERIALS: 1. Larry Ainbinder, updated by Hilary Hochman, Ch. 17, Special Considerations in Representing the Non-Citi- zen Defendant, in Defending A Federal Criminal Case (Federal Defenders of San Diego, an updated Chap- ter 17 has been included in the nationally distributed manual from 1983 — 2000). Kari Converse, Keeping Dorothy in Kansas After Ozkok: New Strategies for Defending Non-Citizens, The Cham- pion, Mar. 1989, at 8 (The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers). Jeffrey B. Fawell & Robert S. White, Effects Of Recent Immigration Legislation On Criminal Aliens & Defense Practitioners, The Champion, Sept./Oct. 1995, at 10 (The National Association of Criminal Defense Law- yers). Maryellen Fullerton & Noah Kinigstein, Strategies for Ameliorating the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions, 23 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 425 (1986). C. Gordon, et al., Immigration Law and Procedure (Bender, 1988 - ). Steven D. Heller, Criminal Convictions And Aliens: Preventing The ‘Collateral Consequence’ Of Deportation, 94-10 Immigr. Briefings 1 (1994). Nancy Hollander & Kari Converse, Immigration Implications for the Alien Defendant (pts. 1 & 2), The Champion, May 1986, at 29, June 1986, at 16 13. 14. 15. App. 9 (The National Association of Criminal Defense Law- yers). Tova Indritz, Representing a Non-Citizen Client in a Criminal Case (training materials prepared for the annual Federal Judicial Center orientation seminar for Assistant Federal Defenders in Nov. 1994) Katznelson, Conley & Martin, Non-U.S. Citizen Defendants in the Federal Court System, 8 Fed. Sentenc- ing Rptr. 259 (1996). Dan Kesselbrenner & Lory D. Rosenberg, Immigra- tion Law And Crimes (West Group, 1984-1999). Kowalski, Sentencing Options for the Deportable Non- Citizen, 8 Fed. Sentencing Rptr. 259 (1996). Ira J. Kurzban, The Immigration Act of 1990, The Champion, Apr. 1991, at 5 (The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers). McWhirter & Sands, A Primer for Defending a Crimi- nal Immigration Case, 8 Geo. Imm. L. J. 23 (1994). Norton Tooby, Criminal Defense of Noncitizens, 22 Immigration Newsletter, Nos. 3 and 4 (National Immigration Project 1995). Alan Vomacka, Immigration Considerations for the Criminal Defense Lawyer, (pts. 1 & 2) The Champion, ‘Apr. 1982, at 9, May 1982, at 4 (The National Asso- ciation of Criminal Defense Lawyers). STATE MANUALS/TREATISES/PUBLICATIONS/ PRACTICE MATERIALS: 1. Jan Bejar, Exclusion or Deportation based on Narcotics and Alien Smuggling Offenses, Mar. 1990 (article writ- ten for federal and state defenders practicing in San Diego area). 10. App. 10 os Jan Bejar, Representing Aliens in Criminal Proceedings: Some Pitfalls for the Criminal Practitioner to Avoid, California Attorneys For Criminal Justice Forum, Apr. 1994. Jim Benzoni, Defending Aliens in Criminal Cases (training materials prepared for criminal defense lawyers attending Continuing Legal Education pro- grams in Iowa from 1994-1997). Katherine A. Brady, et al., California Criminal Law And Immigration (Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 1990-1999). Katherine A. Brady & Hon. Dana Marks Keener, Ch. “48, Representing a Noncitizen Criminal Defendant in California Criminal Law Procedure And Practice 1285 (Continuing Education of the Bar of California, 3rd ed., 1994 — 1996). Katherine A. Brady & David S. Schwartz, Public Defenders Handbook On Immigration (California Public Defenders Association, 1988). Katherine A. Brady, New Developments in Representa- tion of Non-Citizen Defendants, 19 California Attor- neys For Criminal Justice Forum, No. 2, at 30 (1992). Jeffrey N. Brauwerman & Stephen E. Mander, IMMACT 90 Revisions Regarding Immigration Conse- quences Of Criminal Activity, 66-May Florida Bar Journal 28 (1992). Sarah M. Burr, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions for Non-Citizen Clients, 1990, 1991 (train- ing materials prepared for Criminal Defense Divi- sion of The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York). Robert Frank, Criminal Defense Of Foreign Nationals, 167-Mar. N.J Law. 36 (1995). . De aaa see seh Bie acig Ee a 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ae: 18. 19. App. 11 Josie Gonzalez, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions for “Amnesty” Applicants and Other Immi- grants, Jan. 1988 (training materials prepared for the Los Angeles Public Defender’s Office). J. Gonzalez, Representing Accused Non-Citizens, Cali- fornia Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Criminal Law Seminar Syllabus (May 6, 1978). Immigration Issues for Criminal Defense Lawyers, Ch. 17, in Deborah T. Creek Criminal Practice Institute Trial Manual (Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, 1995). D. Kanstroom, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions (training materials prepared for the 1996 Annual Statewide Training Conference of the Com- mittee for Public Counsel Services (Massachusetts Public Defender)). Daniel Kanstroom, Immigration Consequences of Crim- inal Offenses in Massachusetts Criminal Defense 106 — 115 (Eric Blumenson & Stanley Z. Fisher ed., Butter- worth Legal Publishers, 1992; 1993 update). Daniel M. Kowalski & Daniel C. Horne, Defending the Noncitizen, 24 Colo. Law. 2177 (Specialty Law Col- umn, 1995). John J. LaCava, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions: A Primer for the Criminal Lawyer, Nov. 1990 (training materials disseminated to all the Con- necticut Public Defender offices by the Criminal Jus- tice Section of Connecticut Bar Association). Margaret McManus, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Conduct, Sept. 1985 (training materials pre- pared for Criminal Defense Division of The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York). Robert Pauw & Jay Stansell, Immigration Conse- quences of Criminal Convictions, 1992, 1995 update 20. 21. ae. 23. App. 12 (training materials prepared by Northwest Immi- grants Rights Project for criminal defense attorneys in Washington). Mary L. Sfasciotti, Representing Aliens in Criminal Cases — Recent Amendments to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 79 Ill. B.J. 78 (1991). Dennis M. Sullivan, Immigration: The Consequences of A Criminal Conviction, 63-Apr. Wis. Law. 16 (1990). Tarik H. Sultan, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions: A Guideline for the Criminal Defense Attor- ney, 30-Jun Ariz. Att’y 15 (1994). The Legal Aid Society Criminal Appeals Bureau, Representing Clients Who are not United States Citizens: Immigration Consequences of Convictions and Appellate Considerations, (1992). Alfred Zucaro, Jr. & Beth L. Mitchell, Criminal Con- victions: The Immigration Consequences, 63-May Fla. B.J. 36 (1989). ‘ App. 13 APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF PRE-APRIL 1996 TRAIN- INGS FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ON THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS NATIONAL The National Immigration Project of the National Law- yers Guild sponsored the following Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminars for criminal defense lawyers: e Jan. 28, 1984, Boston, MA, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e Feb. 4, 1984, San Francisco, CA, “Immigra- tion Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e Feb. 11, 1984, Los Angeles, CA, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e Mar. 17, 1984, Sacramento, CA, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e May 11, 1984, New York, NY, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e June 25, 1984, Portland, OR, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e June 25, 1984, Seattle, WA, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e Nov. 18, 1985, Washington, D.c.,' “Immigra- tion Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e Dec. 6, 1985, Miami, FL, “Immigration Con- sequences of Criminal Convictions” e Sept. 29, 1989, South Padre Island, TX, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions” e Jan. 19, 1990, Albuquerque, NM, “Trial Prac- tice Skills: Drug Conviction 212(c) Waivers” App. 14 e May 30, 1990, Austin, TX, “Immigration Con- sequences of Criminal Conduct: Drug Con- victions, Weapons Offenses, Aggravated Felonies and Crimes Involving Moral Turpi- tude” ae e Nov. 10, 1990, San Francisco, CA, “Trial Tac- tics, Practice and Substance: 212(c) Waivers of Excludability” e July 31, 1991, Seattle, WA, “Specialized Issues in the Immigration Act of 1990” [includes waivers and criminal grounds of deportability] e Jan. 31, 1992, Chapel Hill, NC, “Defending Against Deportation . . . ” [includes discus- sion of grounds of deportation and forms of relief] e Aug. 4, 1993, New York City, NY, “Justice for Respondents in Immigration Proceedings: Contesting Deportability and 212(c) Waivers for Criminal Offenders” Federal Judicial Center (FJC) is the research and educa- tion agency of the federal judicial system. It has been training federal defenders across the country since 1971. The FJC conducts a national seminar for Assistant Federal Defenders every year, which often includes a segment on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. For example, in Nov. 1994, the FJC conducted a training on “Considerations in Representing a Non-Citizen Cli- ent” at the “Orientation Seminar for Assistant Federal Defenders” in Phoenix, Arizona. App. 15 STATES Jan Bejar, an immigration attorney in San Diego, Califor- nia, has routinely provided annual updates of the immi- gration consequences of criminal convictions to the Federal Defenders of San Diego since 1990. He has also conducted immigration seminars for at least three of the annual Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Seminars inSan Diego, a seminar required for admission to the San Diego CJA panel of court-appointed criminal defense attorneys. One such presentation was on June 4, 1991 on “The 1990 Changes in Immigration Consequences for a Criminal Defendant.” Anne Benson, while employed at the Northwest Immi- grants Rights Project in Seattle, Washington, often trained Seattle public defenders about the immigration conse- quences of criminal convictions. For example, on Mar. 21, 1996, she provided training to The Defender Association (the largest public defender agency in Seattle-King County) on “Immigration Law & Crimes.” Jim Benzoni, an adjunct professor for immigration law at Drake University Law School in Iowa and one of the main attorneys doing immigration and criminal work in that state, has given numerous CLE’s on the subject, partic- ularly between 1994-1996. For instance, on Aug. 3, 1994, he conducted a CLE presentation on “Defending Aliens in Criminal Cases,” which was sponsored by the Iowa Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Katherine Brady is a national expert on the interplay of criminal and immigration law and has authored many : publications on the subject. A partial list of CLE semi- nars, sponsored or co-sponsored by the Immigrant Legal ON faerie App. 16 Resource Center, that she has given to train criminal defense attorneys in California to advise properly noncit- izen clients of the immigration effect of criminal convic- tions follows: ——— = e Sept. 1991, San Francisco, “Immigration Con- sequences of Crimes” e Sept. 1991, Davis, “Immigration Conse- quences of Crimes” . e Oct. 1991, Los Angeles, “Immigration Conse- quences of Crimes” e Nov. 1991, San Diego, “Immigration Conse- quences of Crimes” e Mar. 1993, Davis, “Immigration Conse- quences of Criminal Convictions” e Mar. 1993, San Diego, “Immigration Conse- quences of Criminal Convictions” e Apr. 1993, San Francisco, “Immigration Con- sequences of Criminal convictions” e Apr. 1993, Los Angeles, “Immigration Conse- quences of Criminal Convictions” e Feb. 1995, San Francisco, “Immigration and Crimes” e Apr. 1995, San Francisco, “Immigration Con- sequences of Crimes” e May 1995, Los Angeles, “Immigration Conse- quences of Crime” e May 1995, Fresno; “Immigration Conse- quences of Crimes” e June 1995, San Diego, “Immigration Conse- quences of Crimes” ' App. 17 Victor Castro, an immigration attorney in Santa Clara, California, regularly provides training on the immigra- tion consequences of criminal convictions for the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office. In 1992, he also conducted a trainer for the Santa Clara criminal bar on the “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions, Relief available to Noncitizens, and How to Strategize to Provide a Legal Defense.” Federal Defenders of San Diego sponsors the annual Criminal Justice Act Seminar in San Diego, which is required for admission to the San Diego CJA panel of court-appointed attorneys. The seminar often includes a segment on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. The Federal Defenders of San Diego also sponsors other immigration seminars for the criminal defense bar in San Diego and \the surrounding areas such as the “Crime Control Act of 1994,” part of which focused on “Aliens and Immigration Enforcement” on Dec. 7, 1994. Daniel Kanstroom, the Director of the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Project and an Associate Clini- cal Professor at Boston College Law School, has for years provided training for public defenders about the inter- play of criminal law and immigration law. One such presentation was on “Immigration Consequences of Criminal \ Offenses,” on Mar. 8, 1995, for the Dorchester Bar Association. The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York, Crimi- nal Defense Division, has periodic in-house immigration training for all its staff attorneys on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. Specifically: App. 18 e In 1985, Margaret McManus conducted an office-wide training on the “Immigration \ Consequences of Criminal Conduct.” e From 1989-present, The Legal Aid Society has had a city-wide training for the new staff attorneys on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. e In 1991, 1993, and 1994, The Legal Aid Soci- ety had a several-day-long advanced training for lawyers on “The Preparation and Trial of a Narcotics Case,” which included a specific lecture on the immigration consequences of drug convictions. Los Angeles County Public Defender provides in-house training for its staff attorneys every few years on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. For instance on Jan. 13, 1988, Josie Gonzalez conducted an oftice-wide training on the “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions for “Amnesty” Applicants and other Immigrants,” and on Mar. 30, 1994, Gilbert Lopez conducted an office-wide seminar on the “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions, Criminal Pleas, Diversion and Post-Conviction Remedies.” San Francisco City and County Public Defender has provided an in-house training for all of its staff attorneys every year on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions since 1990. Professor James Smith, the Directing Attorney of the Immigration Law Clinic of the School of Law of the University of California at Davis, and the Davis Immigra- tion Law Clinic have sponsored an average of 5 training App. 19 sessions each academic year and many individual consul- tations since 1987 for criminal defense counsel on the immigration consequences of crime. Jay Stansell, while employed at Northwest Immigrants Rights Project in Seattle, Washington, conducted approxi- mately two trainings per year for local defender agencies on the “Immigration Consequences of Crime,” highlight- ing the availability of 212(c) relief for many clients. He also spoke at the following specific CLE trainings: e Apr. 11, 1992, University of Washington School of Law, “Immigration Consequences of Crime” e Oct. 21, 1993, Seattle, “Immigration Conse- quences of Crime,” sponsored by Seattle- King County Bar Association e Jan. 18, 1994, Seattle, “Immigration Conse- quences of Criminal Convictions,” sponsored by Northwest Immigrants Rights Project e Oct. 21, 1994, Seattle, “Importance of Immi- gration Considerations when Representing Juvenile Non-citizen Offenders,” sponsored by Washington Defenders Association e Mar. 31, 1995, Seattle, “Firearm Offenses and 212(c) Relief,” sponsored by Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Norton Tooby is a California attorney who specializes in the representation of non-citizens in criminal courts and the author of many publications on strategies to amelio- rate the immigration consequences of convictions. A par- tial list of CLE seminars he has given to criminal defense lawyers on the immigration effects of criminal convic- tions follows: App. 20 Sept. 18, 1990, San Francisco, “Post-Convic- tion Relief and Its Impact on Immigration Cases,” sponsored by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (IRLC) and Golden Gate Law School Sept. 25, 1990, San Jose, “Post-Conviction Relief and Its Impact on Immigration Cases,” sponsored by ILRC and Golden Gate Law School Oct. 5, 1991, San Francisco, “Immigration Consequences of Crimes,” sponsored by the ILRC Oct. 26, 1991, Davis, CA, “In:migration Con- sequences of Criminal Offenses,” sponsored by the ILRC; State Bar Association; National Lawyers Guild; American Immigration Law- yers Association; and the U.C. Davis Immi- gration Law Clinic Mar. 6, 1993) Davis, “The Immigration Con- sequences of Criminal Convictions,” spon- sored by the ILRC and the California Bar Association, Criminal Law Section Apr. 3, 1993, San Francisco, “The Immigra- tion Consequences of Criminal Convictions,” sponsored by the ILRC and the California Bar Association, Criminal Law Section June 12, 1993, Los Angeles, “The Immigra- tion Consequences of Criminal Convictions,” sponsored by the ILRC and the California Bar Association, Criminal Law Section App. 21 APPENDIX D: INDEX OF DOCUMENTS LODGED WITH THE SUPREME COURT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CITED IN BRIEF ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty (2d ed.), Standard 14-3.2, commentary (1982)..... L-1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty, (3d ed.), Standards 14-1.4 & 14-3.2, commentary (RUNES bo ah at haden bee eee eee eee L-2 NLADA Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, Guideline 6.2, 6.3, commentary (OPED ++ pnb eucankueghicndea ssa been eae ee L-3 AFFIDAVITS/DECLARATIONS CITED IN BRIEF Declaration of Cristina C. Arguedas, filed in Jun Li Tam v. Reno, No. C-98-2835 MHP (9th Cir.) on PO. 28, TORR 6 sks decease ea faares L-4 Declaration of Katherine A. Brady, filed in In re Resendiz, No. S078879 (Cal.) on Jan. 7, 1999...... L-5 | Declaration of Nancy L. Clarence, filed in Jun Li Tam v. Reno, No. C-98-2835 MHP (9th Cir.) on Ws Mle SOs $onkeisda) ee ee L-6 Declaration of Susan L. Hendricks, filed with amici curiae brief of The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York, et al., in Calcano-Martinez v. INS, No. 98-4033, 98-4214, 98-4246 (2d Cir.) on FOO. SF, PeORkiaiadcatcn se ee ice Ururcia L-7 \ Affidavit of Daniel Kanstroom, filed with amici curiae brief of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association & New York State Defenders Association in Bonhometre v. Reno, No. 98-12333-NG (D. Mass.) on Feb. 1, 2000 ..... L-8 App. 22 Declaration of Larry Kupers, filed in Jun Li Tam v. Reno, No. C-98-2835 MHP (9th Cir.) on Feb. 22, 1999. ncccctcvanccesuddegensecs seaukeveeneusnees L-9 Affidavit of Dennis R. Murphy, filed with amici curiae brief of the National Association of Crim- inal Defense Lawyers & the National Legal Aid and Defender Association before the Attorney General in Matter of Soriano, Int. Dec. 3289 on Ape. 30, 1906. sccccccscietssassucvaneyceeeunest L-10 Declaration of James F. Smith, filed in In re Resen- diz, No. S078879 (Cal.) on Jan. 7, 1999.......... L-11 Declaration of Norton Tooby, filed in In re Resen- diz, No. S078879 (Cal.) on Jan. 7, 1999.......... L-12 UNPUBLISHED PRACTICE AIDS/TRAINING MATE- RIALS CITED IN BRIEF Larry Ainbinder, updated by Hilary Hochman, Ch. 17, Special Considerations in Representing the Non-Citizen Defendant, in Defending A Federal Criminal Case 837, 838, 853 (Federal Defenders of Sam Theme, T9056 OG). oss sdcwrosccvsaswecucesss L-13 Jan Bejar, Representing Aliens in Criminal Proceed- ings in Criminal Justice Act Seminar materials, June 4, 1991 (pp. 1, 42-45, 61-62) «2. cescviccess L-14 Jim Benzoni, Defending Aliens in Criminal Cases (training materials prepared for criminal defense lawyers attending CLE programs in Iowa from 1994-1997) (pp. 1-2, 13-15)........... L-15 Katherine A. Brady & David S. Schwartz, Public Defenders Handbook On Immigration 1-4 (Califor- nia Public Defenders Association, 1988)......... L-16 App. 23 John J. Lacava, Immigration Act of 1990 and its Effect on Criminal Aliens (Immigration Law Bul- letin included in Memorandum to All Attorneys of the Division of Public Defender Services of the State of Connecticut, Mar. 12, 1991)......... --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_1327%3A11. Public record. Not legal advice.