Jennings v. Rodriguez: The Constitutionality of Detaining Immigrants Without a Hearing
In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained Alejandro Rodriguez, a lawful resident working as a dental assistant.[1] Rodriquez […]
Victory Without a Remedy: Update on the Long Fight Against DAPL
In November 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon handed down an extraordinary decision in a
A “Particularly Severe Penalty”
Last spring, I wrote about Lee v. United States,[1] a case on appeal from the Sixth Circuit that was still
The Imaginary Attorney
To reverse a conviction or capital sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must meet the two-prong
Plea Bargaining and the Supreme Court
A few weeks ago, I wrote about ineffective assistance of counsel and plea-bargaining in the context of the upcoming
(Ir)Rational Actors: The Right to Trial in Lee v. United States
In 2009, Jae Lee–a legal resident but not an American citizen– was charged with possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute. The evidence against Lee was staggering, and his lawyer incorrectly promised that a plea deal would not put him in danger of deportation. The plea deal reduced Lee’s prison time from a 24-30 month range to a year and one day. Possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute, however, is an aggravated felony. Thus, Lee’s plea also mandated “deportation and permanent exile from the United States.”