In the 2010 landmark decision Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel demands that criminal defense attorneys inform their clients of adverse immigration consequences that may flow from a guilty plea.
UCLA Law Professor Ingrid Eagly and her colleagues asked the critical question of whether public defenders have adequately incorporated Padilla into their defense.
Their findings not surprisingly “reveal a patchwork system in which each county in California has created its own approach to immigration advising.”
Some counties have created full immigrant defense offices while many other counties have languished: “They have not hired immigration experts, developed county protocols for immigration advising, or implemented immigration law training for their attorneys who accept indigent court appointments.”
Listen as Professor Eagly discusses Padilla and its impact on public defenders in California.