Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

When Jose Padilla was arrested in Kentucky in 2001 for drug trafficking, his lawyer advised him to plead guilty in exchange for a shorter sentence. Padilla is a legal permanent resident, having immigrated from Honduras 40 years ago, and his lawyer advised Padilla that the guilty plea would not affect his immigration status. Padilla pleaded guilty in October 2002 and was sentenced to 5 years in prison and 5 years of probation.

The lawyer's advice, unfortunately, was wrong. Drug trafficking is an "aggravated felony," meaning Padilla lost any benefit of his immigration status and would have no defense should the government choose to deport him. In 2004, Padilla filed a motion in court in Kentucky asking to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he would not have plead guilty if he had known about the immigration consequences.

The general rule for legal advice at trial is that a lawyer must fully inform a client of the direct consequences of a guilty plea, such as jail time, but the lawyer has no duty to explain "collateral consequences" like losing the right to vote or own firearms. The Supreme Court Tuesday heard arguments that loss of immigration status is such an important issue—and was so important to Padilla's decision to make the plea—that a lawyer's incorrect advice warrants overturning the conviction and possibly bringing a new trial.

The Supreme Court Justices seemed to primarily be concerned that if Padilla is allowed to take back his plea it would expand the job of a court-appointed attorney to include giving all sorts of legal advice rather than letting them focus on getting a favorable verdict in the specific case for which they are assigned. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito asked the attorneys several times whether incorrect advice on child custody and confiscation of property could lead to new trials. Padilla's lawyer argued that, if that advice was key to the defendant's decision to plead guilty, it could be grounds for a new trial. He further pointed out that a lawyer is always free to say that he simply does not know or refuse to answer entirely.

The lawyer for Kentucky, at one point comparing the collateral issues to land mines, nevertheless argued that the Sixth Amendment, which provides the right to an attorney at trial, only provided that attorney for the purpose of countering the government's prosecution. In other words, anything the lawyer says about collateral consequences is outside of his mandated role under the Sixth Amendment and is therefore not grounds for reversal.

The Supreme Court will hand down its decision in the case later this year.