En Masse Pleas Allowed in Immigration Hearings
Arizona Daily Sun reports that: Federal judges on Monday gave their approval to procedures used in courts to speed up the processing of illegal immigrants. In a unanimous ruling, the judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said there is nothing inherently wrong about taking guilty pleas from individuals in a large group at a single hearing. More to the point, appellate Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain said nothing in the process used short-circuited the constitutional rights of those involved. Monday's ruling is a major victory for federal prosecutors who defended the process as a practical way to deal with the large number of illegal immigrants who have to be processed every day. It also comes more than a year after another panel of the same appellate court voided a similar process as unconstitutional. But there was a key difference in the way the other cases were handled -- a difference that apparently made this process legal while the others were not. At the heart of the dispute is Operation Streamline. Under that system, a group of up to 70 people accused of misdemeanor violations of illegally entering the United States have their initial appearance, guilty pleas and sentencing in a single hearing. In a 2009 ruling, the 9th Circuit said taking pleas en masse, with all defendants agreeing to plead guilty as a group, violated the constitutional rights of those involved. In this case, the magistrate, speaking to the group -- in some cases, through headphones in Spanish -- informed them collectively of their rights, their charges and the consequences of pleading guilty. After each statement, the magistrate asked them collectively if they understood their rights. The record reflects no negative responses.
Arizona Daily Sun reports that: Federal judges on Monday gave their approval to procedures used in courts to speed up the processing of illegal immigrants. In a unanimous ruling, the judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said there is nothing inherently wrong about taking guilty pleas from individuals in a large group at a single hearing. More to the point, appellate Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain said nothing in the process used short-circuited the constitutional rights of those involved. Monday's ruling is a major victory for federal prosecutors who defended the process as a practical way to deal with the large number of illegal immigrants who have to be processed every day. It also comes more than a year after another panel of the same appellate court voided a similar process as unconstitutional. But there was a key difference in the way the other cases were handled -- a difference that apparently made this process legal while the others were not. At the heart of the dispute is Operation Streamline. Under that system, a group of up to 70 people accused of misdemeanor violations of illegally entering the United States have their initial appearance, guilty pleas and sentencing in a single hearing. In a 2009 ruling, the 9th Circuit said taking pleas en masse, with all defendants agreeing to plead guilty as a group, violated the constitutional rights of those involved. In this case, the magistrate, speaking to the group -- in some cases, through headphones in Spanish -- informed them collectively of their rights, their charges and the consequences of pleading guilty. After each statement, the magistrate asked them collectively if they understood their rights. The record reflects no negative responses.
No comments:
Post a Comment