If that much is true, the inquiry turns to the prospect that such an investigation would have borne disqualifying fruit. The Government need not show definitively that its investigation would have unearthed a disqualifying fact. It need only establish that the investigation “would predictably have disclosed” some legal disqualification. Id., at 774. If that is […]
False Statements and Immigration Benefits: Part 3
The statute Congress passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization. When the underlying illegality alleged in a §1425(a) prosecution is a false statement to government officials, a jury must decide whether […]
False Statements and Immigration Benefits: Part 2
Justice Kagan, writing for a six-justice majority, held that the text of §1425(a) makes clear that, to secure a conviction, the Government must establish that the defendant’s illegal act played a role in her acquisition of citizenship. The pro-prosecutor wing of the Court, Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas, all concurred in the judgement, but differed […]
False Statements and Immigration Benefits: Part 1
On June 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Maslenjak v. United States. Petitioner Divna Maslenjak is an ethnic Serb who resided in Bosnia during the 1990’s, when a civil war divided the new country. In 1998, she and her family sought refugee status in the United States. Interviewed under oath, […]
Investigative Detentions & Reasonable Suspicion: Part 4
Because it was an investigative detention from the point that Campan took those directed actions toward defendant, the Court must consider whether, based on a totality of the circumstances, the encounter was “justified at its inception” by a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. An anonymous tip, standing alone, inherently lacks the reliability necessary […]
Investigative Detentions & Reasonable Suspicion: Part 3
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7. Warrantless searches and seizures presumptively violate those protections, but not all police-citizen encounters constitute searches or seizures for purposes of the […]
Investigative Detentions & Reasonable Suspicion: Part 2
Campan asked defendant what she was doing, and she replied that she was smoking a cigarette. Campan testified that he did not observe a cigarette or cigarette butt. Campan asked her why she began to scuffle around the passenger-seat area when he pulled his car up behind hers. Defendant replied that she had been applying […]
Investigative Detentions & Reasonable Suspicion: Part 1
On June 6, 2017, Justice LaVecchia wrote for a six to one majority of the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Monmouth County case of State v. Lurdes Rosario. In this appeal, the Court addresses whether and at what point defendant’s interaction with the police officer escalated from a field inquiry into an investigative detention. […]
The Importance of Remaining Silent After Arrest: Part 3
With respect to cross-examination of a defendant on factual inconsistencies between his testimony at trial and his pretrial statement, the Court has held that “it is not an infringement of a defendant’s right to remain silent for the State to point out differences in the defendant’s testimony at trial and his or her statements that […]
The Importance of Remaining Silent After Arrest: Part 2
When the trial resumed, defense counsel informed the court that the limiting instruction advised the jury that defendant’s silence could be used for impeachment purposes. Counsel requested a clarifying instruction to fix this error, which the trial court issued. This instruction was repeated, without objection, during the final jury charge. The jury found defendant guilty […]
English
Spanish