| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Chaidez v. United States ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Chaidez v. United States
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (2013), was a Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment.〔Chaidez v. United States, (133 S. Ct. 1103 ), 1113 (2013).〕 Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea.〔Padilla v. Commonwealth Kentucky, (130 S.Ct. 1473 ), 1478 (2010).〕 While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied.〔Padilla v. Kentucky, (130 S.Ct. 1473 ), 1496 (2010).〕 Justice Scalia wondered if the same logic could be extended and applied to numerous other cases, and felt it would be impossible for attorneys to make sure any client was informed of all the potential legal consequences post trial.〔Padilla v. Kentucky, (130 S.Ct. 1473 ), 1496 (2010).〕
Chaidez v. United States placed a limitation on the Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky so that it does not apply to any case before March 31, 2010 which was when Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky was finalized. Some legal scholars speculate that this decision was made in part to prevent a "flood" of new cases from any time in the past.〔"(The Supreme Court Ruling in Chaidez v. United States: Averting a Flood of Padilla Litigation by Former Prisoners )"Criminal Law Reporter. May 31, 2010〕 Non-citizens challenging a deportation case who do not have protection under Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky are still able to appeal a trial if they have been otherwise misadvised regarding the actual trial. Chaidez v. United States did not clarify whether or not individuals who filed a claim before March 31, 2010, but whose final conviction took place after March 31, 2010 were able to receive protection from Padilla v. Kentucky.〔"(Seeking Post-Conviction Under Padilla v. Kentucky after Chaidez v. United States )" National Immigration Project. February 28, 2013〕
==Background==
Roselva Chaidez, the petitioner, was born in Mexico but moved to the United States in the 1970s. She became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1977. She was originally brought to court over an insurance defraud case in the early 2000s.〔Chaidez v. United States, (133 S. Ct. 1103 ), 1106 (2013).〕 Chaidez pretended to be a passenger in a car collision to be able to receive part of the insurance claim. From this claim, she received about $1,200 until the insurance company later picked up on the defraud.〔Chaidez v. United States, (133 S. Ct. 1103 ), 1106 (2013).〕 This insurance defraud was of a larger insurance scheme led by other individuals, which earned approximately $26,000.〔"(In Supreme Court Case Chaidez v. United States, NIJC Argues that Immigrants’ Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel Existed Pre-Padilla )" National Immigrant Justice Center. February 20, 2014.〕 In the original case, she pleaded guilty and sentenced to four years of probation.〔"(In Supreme Court Case Chaidez v. United States, NIJC Argues that Immigrants’ Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel Existed Pre-Padilla )" National Immigrant Justice Center. February 20, 2014.〕 She was unaware of the potential deportation consequences this would have.
Chaidez disclosed the information about her guilty plea when she was applying to become a United States citizen in 2007.〔"(In Supreme Court Case Chaidez v. United States, NIJC Argues that Immigrants’ Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel Existed Pre-Padilla )" National Immigrant Justice Center. February 20, 2014.〕 While she only played a minor role in a larger fraud scheme, the total fraud of the larger scheme was above $10,000 and therefore considered an aggravated felony under United States law. Her application was being reviewed in 2009, when it was discovered that her crime meant that according to the law she should be deported from the United States.〔Chaidez v. United States, (133 S. Ct. 1103 ), 1106 (2013).〕 Chaidez challenged her original defraud case on the grounds that she was not warned about deportation at the same time Padilla v. Commonwealth was being decided in the courts.〔"(In Supreme Court Case Chaidez v. United States, NIJC Argues that Immigrants’ Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel Existed Pre-Padilla )" National Immigrant Justice Center. February 20, 2014.〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Chaidez v. United States」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|