Due Process and the Post-Padilla Landscape: Balancing the Severity of Deportation as a Collateral Consequence with a Court's Traditionally Narrow Obligation in Accepting a Plea

Authors

Orrie A. Levy, Bronx County District Attorney's Office

Abstract

The article examines the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, which established that defense attorneys must inform defendants of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea under the Sixth Amendment. It explores the tension between the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and the Fifth Amendment due process obligations of trial courts, highlighting that while Padilla mandates attorney advice on immigration consequences, courts are not required to inform defendants of such consequences. The article argues against extending due process obligations to include severe collateral consequences, emphasizing the impracticality of requiring courts to foresee and disclose all potential consequences of a plea. It also discusses strategic behaviors by defense attorneys and potential legislative solutions to address these issues.

Disciplines

Constitutional Law | Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure | Fourteenth Amendment | Law | Legislation | Psychiatry and Psychology

Recommended Citation

Orrie A. Levy, Due Process and the Post-Padilla Landscape: Balancing the Severity of Deportation as a Collateral Consequence with a Court's Traditionally Narrow Obligation in Accepting a Plea, 11 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J. 41 (2012).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cplpej/vol11/iss1/4