For noncitizen criminal defendants, a guilty sentence often means deportation. For many years, confusion and inconsistency governed the question of whether a criminal defense attorney had a duty to advise a noncitizen defendant on the immigration consequences of a conviction. Before Padilla v. Kentucky, thousands of defendants—especially those who were incarcerated—received no advice on immigration consequences and unknowingly signed pleas that would lead to their deportation. When the landmark Padilla decision was issued, defense attorney reactions ranged from ecstatic celebration to feigned nonchalance to outright panic. Everyone knew that they had just witnessed a revolution in the field of criminal justice, but no one knew when or how the casualties would arrive. Would every attorney be required to learn immigration law? Interpretations of Padilla vary, and many criminal defense attorneys remain uncertain of their obligations under Padilla and how to fulfill them.
Skip Nav Destination
Editorial| October 01 2011
“Do I Have to Learn What a 'Crime of Moral Turpitude' Is?”: The World Before and After Padilla v. Kentucky
Legal Director and Criminal Immigration Consultant, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project
Search for other works by this author on:
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2011) 24 (1): 66–69.
Kara Hartzler; “Do I Have to Learn What a 'Crime of Moral Turpitude' Is?”: The World Before and After Padilla v. Kentucky. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 October 2011; 24 (1): 66–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2011.24.1.66
Download citation file:
Don't already have an account? Register
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.