Publication Date
4-2024
Document Type
Article
First Page
1046
Abstract
In 2010, the Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky that criminal defense attorneys have a constitutional obligation to advise noncitizen clients of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea in criminal court proceedings. Though it has been over a decade since the decision, little research has been done regarding Padilla’s implementation by defense counsel on a statewide level. This Article provides findings from a case study on Padilla advising in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is unique because its state courts have interpreted Padilla narrowly and permit immigration advisals that would be deemed constitutionally deficient in other jurisdictions. Pennsylvania also does not have a state-funded public defense system, which means standards for indigent representation vary by county. Interviews with public defenders and prosecutors in Pennsylvania reveal significant variation in the scope of advice provided to noncitizens in criminal court proceedings and the willingness of district attorney offices to consider immigration status during plea negotiations. Each Pennsylvania county has an individual method of identifying noncitizen clients, analyzing immigration consequences, warning clients of these adverse consequences, and negotiating with district attorneys. The scope of advice provided to noncitizens and counsel’s understanding of their Padilla obligations vary considerably in both content and scope. Counties suffer from Pennsylvania’s systemic failure to provide adequate funding to public defense offices to ensure that they can effectively comply with Padilla—a problem that is especially salient in a state with limited postconviction remedies for those who receive deficient advice. Based on these findings, this Article offers various policy recommendations that would improve the criminal defense representation of noncitizens in Pennsylvania. While these findings and recommendations are specific to Pennsylvania, they are relevant to nationwide research on Padilla’s impact and what can be done to promote immigration-conscious criminal defense advocacy.
Repository Citation
Mikaela
Wolf-Sorokin,
,
Liz
Bradley,
&
Whitney
Viets,
Padilla's Broken Promise: Pennsylvania Case Study,
26
U. Pa. J. Const. L.
1046
(2024).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol26/iss4/4