Latest news with #SixthAmendment
Newsweek
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Open the Immigration Courtroom—Justice Can't Be Done in the Dark
As Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex-trafficking and racketeering trial enters its sixth week, Americans are getting a front-row seat to justice in action. Thanks to media access inside the courtroom, trial coverage dominates headlines and social media platforms like TikTok. But while America scrutinizes one man's reckoning in real time, thousands of other people with just as much at stake remain invisible. That's because immigration courtrooms, where non-citizens petition for legal status to stop deportation, are closed to the public. This lack of visibility isn't due to public disinterest. It's by design. The interior of the Minnesota Supreme Court is pictured. The interior of the Minnesota Supreme Court is pictured. Getty Images As a former assistant chief counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), I spent over a decade litigating cases in closed-door proceedings. During our training, we're told that immigration courts are closed to protect the safety of a person seeking relief. But after years as a prosecutor, I've come to see things differently: secrecy doesn't protect immigrants—it protects the system. To achieve proper accountability and transparency from the government, as is the public's right under the First Amendment, it's time to open the courtroom doors. Visibility––however uncomfortable for the judges, prosecutors, and the parties involved–– is what the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to a public criminal trial requires. Though civil, immigration courts shouldn't be exempt from basic principles of transparency. Oversight enables public debates like those surrounding Cassie's testimony in Diddy's trial. Meanwhile, immigration courts operate like black boxes, largely immune to scrutiny. The closed nature of immigration courts, classified as civil, is not required by law. While some proceedings, such as bond proceedings and initial masters, are technically open to the public, immigration judges have near-total discretion to close them. And they often do, as in Mahmoud Khalil's case, where the court disabled video links and phone access, citing procedural reasons such as reserving access only for parties and witnesses, not the press or public. Invisible courtrooms allow systemic failures to go unchecked. Take the case of Ximena Arias-Cristobal, a 19-year-old college student, arrested in Dalton, Ga., on May 5, for allegedly running a red light. Local police later admitted she hadn't. But by then, Ximena had already been handed over to ICE, transferred to Stewart Detention Center, detained for 16 days, and placed into removal proceedings. Her place of birth—not her actions—determined her fate. A closed removal hearing meant observers couldn't question how racial profiling enabled her arrest or how ICE capitalizes on its use. In a system where justice operates like a two-way mirror, the government sees everything, and the public only sees what it's allowed to. Invisibility also facilitates the coordinated betrayal of due process. In late May, asylum seekers in Miami, Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and Chicago appeared for their hearings. They placed their trust in the legal system, hoping that the harm they suffered would be considered with the dignity and fairness the law promises. Instead, judges, cloaked in the illusion of neutrality, granted the government's motion to dismiss case after case without testimony or review, fully aware that ICE agents waited outside with handcuffs. Once dismissed, the government was free to detain and deport immediately. And with the public barred from observing, no one saw that what was presented as "justice" felt more like a sting operation. Some argue that closing immigration courts protects applicants who are fleeing persecution, from retaliation or public trauma. But if this system was truly designed to protect the vulnerable, it wouldn't have terminated nearly 30 immigration judges without cause, sending a chilling message to those who remain. Nor would it need to hide behind closed doors to obscure its 76 percent denial rate in March 2025 alone. The message is clear: immigration courts aren't protecting dignity. They protect discretion, unchecked power, and this administration's enforcement priorities. To achieve accountability, we need transparency. In the Diddy trial, prosecution star witness Cassie did not derive her strength from silence; it came from speaking out. Her willingness to expose painful chapters of her life forced the public to confront the systems of power that enable abuse. But Mahmoud Khalil and others in immigration court aren't afforded that exposure. Their fight for justice plays offstage, unheard and unseen. If the public could witness what happens inside immigration courts, perhaps then, instead of debating open borders or legal loopholes, we'd begin to understand what is at stake. Organizations like the American Bar Association have begun court awareness projects to let the public in. Until immigration courts are opened to the public, justice will not be reimagined. Veronica Cardenas is an immigration attorney, former assistant chief counsel with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and founder of Humanigration. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
Lori Vallow Daybell found guilty in 3rd trial
Lori Vallow Daybell was found guilty on Thursday in her second murder conspiracy trial in Arizona. The jury concluded Vallow Daybell conspired to kill Brandon Boudreaux, her niece's ex-husband. Vallow Daybell, who represented herself, pleaded not guilty. This marks her third trial in recent years. Earlier in spring, she was found guilty of conspiring to murder her estranged husband, Charles Vallow, in Arizona. She awaits sentencing for this trial. Vallow Daybell was also convicted in Idaho for killing her children — Tylee and JJ — and Tammy Daybell, her husband Chad Daybell's first wife in Idaho. She is serving several life sentences without the possibility of parole. Despite a shaky start to the trial last Friday, when Vallow Daybell appeared in court in a wheelchair and asked the judge for more time, the proceedings ended this week. She ran into a confrontation with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Justin Beresky in court on Friday. Vallow Daybell wanted the judge to allow the inclusion of character evidence but the judge told her that could leave the door open for the prosecution to include evidence of her prior convictions. The judge advised her to consult her advisory council during the lunch break. 'You don't need to yell at me,' Vallow Daybell responded. After a brief back and forth, where the judge stressed he didn't raise his voice, he ordered Vallow Daybell to be escorted out of the courtroom. She argued she'd been 'very courteous' to Beresky. The judge didn't take to her remark too kindly, saying, 'No, you have been nothing near courteous to me during the course of these proceedings.' She apologized to Beresky 15 minutes later. The judge offered her a warning: another slip up and he could revoke her right to represent herself. In addition to juggling the Arizona trial, Vallow Daybell is also attempting to file an appeal in Idaho, where she is serving several life sentences. 'Lori Daybell respectfully asks this Court to reverse her judgment of conviction and remand for an order dismissing all charges against her based on a violation of her statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial,' the brief, filed May 30, states, according to KTVB 7. Her attorney argued the court disqualified her chosen attorney, violating her Sixth Amendment.
Boston Globe
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Yahoo
Criminal defendants are being held without lawyers in Mass. as bar advocates refuse new cases
More than 50 people across Boston and neighboring Middlesex County are being held without a lawyer assigned to their case as bar advocates across Massachusetts continue to refuse to take on new cases, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. In a statement Monday evening, the association said the growing number of unrepresented people in Massachusetts, which it says has grown to exceed 240 in just Boston and Middlesex County, represents a crisis. As of last week, roughly 40 people in Boston were being held in custody without a lawyer, and more than 150 were unrepresented, the association said. In Middlesex County, which includes Cambridge, 16 people are being held without lawyers and 90 people accused of crimes are awaiting a court-appointed attorney, according to the statement. Read more: A right to an attorney? Court-appointed lawyers are refusing cases in Mass. over low pay It was not immediately clear what the statewide totals were, but the association indicated there are 'many others who remain locked in custody with no one as their voice.' The association's president, Shira Diner, said the numbers reflected a 'full-blown constitutional breakdown.' 'The right to counsel is not a luxury. It is a bedrock principle of our justice system, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and by Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights,' Diner said. 'When people are jailed without lawyers, the system ceases to be just — or constitutional.' Bar advocates are independent defense attorneys who represent those who can not afford lawyers. They are not part of the state's public defender agency, the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Those attorneys have been refusing to take on new cases amid a pay dispute. The association says bar advocates in Massachusetts are paid far less than those in neighboring states. 'The unsustainable pay structure has led to an exodus of experienced attorneys and an inability to recruit new ones — with the result that hundreds of accused individuals find themselves in legal limbo," the association wrote in a statement. Read more: Bar advocate revolt over low pay expected to balloon across the state Anyone in custody for more than seven days without representation can be released under state law. If a lawyer is not assigned in that timeframe, courts are either forced to violate a person's constitutional right to an attorney or release them without due process, the association said. 'People accused of crimes are sitting in jail cells without a lawyer,' Diner continued. 'Others are missing crucial opportunities to gather necessary evidence and are left with nothing but uncertainty.' A spokesperson for the trial courts said the state's court system has been 'in communication' with CPCS 'in an effort to reduce disruptions due to the work stoppage by Bar Advocates.' Bar advocates handle about 80% of criminal cases for defendants who can't afford attorneys in Massachusetts courts. Mass. weather: Central Mass. could see over 1 inch of rain on Tuesday Some Nantucket short-term rentals in jeopardy after land court decision Big Y plans changes to its Tower Square store Mass. labor groups rally against ICE arrest of California union leader Driver taken to hospital after truck crashes into telephone pole in Belchertown Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ex-senator's wife, convicted in bribery scheme, seeks new trial
Sen. Bob Menendez takes a selfie with his wife, Nadine, and businessman Wael Hana. The three were co-defendants in an 18-count federal corruption indictment. (Courtesy of U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York) The wife of former Sen. Bob Menendez has asked a federal judge to overturn her bribery conviction, saying prosecutors wrongly forced her to change lawyers less than a year before her trial over a 'manufactured' conflict of interest. Nadine Arslanian Menendez had to hire new attorneys in a hurry last year after prosecutors said they might call attorney David Schertler, who had represented her for nearly two years, as a trial witness to testify about information he'd shared with the prosecution during pre-indictment negotiations. But prosecutors never called Schertler to the stand during a three-week trial in Manhattan that ended in April, when jurors found Nadine Menendez guilty of accepting bribes including gold bars, cash, and a luxury car in exchange for power and political influence and of trying to hide her actions from federal investigators. Prosecutors' 'improper government interference' with her legal representation violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of her choice, her new attorneys, Sarah R. Krissoff and Andrew Vazquez, wrote in a motion filed Friday. 'To be clear — the Government has broad discretion to choose which witnesses to call and which evidence to offer in proving its case. But the Government cannot create a conflict, forcing Mr. Schertler to be a witness against his own client and to withdraw from the case, and then secretly decide not to call Mr. Schertler or offer any evidence regarding the Government's allegations that created the conflict in the first place,' the attorneys wrote. Prosecutors also never bothered to alert Barry Coburn, the defense attorney who replaced Schertler, that they decided against putting Schertler on the stand, preventing her from rehiring him, Krissoff and Vazquez wrote. 'If Mrs. Menendez had known that there was no longer any conflict, Mrs. Menendez would have elected to bring Mr. Schertler and his firm back into the case at any point, up until the last day of trial. Whether the Government's conduct was careless or intentional, the result is the same: Mrs. Menendez's fundamental constitutional rights were violated,' the attorneys wrote. Such a constitutional infringement created a structural error in the case and necessitates an acquittal or new trial, they argued. The conflict dates back to August 2023, about a month before the indictment, when Schertler met with prosecutors and claimed that mortgage and car payments totaling more than $50,000 that businessmen Wael Hana and Jose Uribe paid toward Nadine Menendez's Englewood Cliffs home and Mercedes-Benz convertible were loans — not bribes, according to court documents. Prosecutors used that information to file new obstruction of justice charges against the Menendezes, and they told the couple they planned to question Schertler before a jury on the matter, creating a conflict between Nadine Menendez and her lawyer. Besides their objections about Schertler's withdrawal, Krissoff and Vazquez repeated the former senator's oft-repeated complaint that the case should have been tried in New Jersey and not Manhattan. They also contend prosecutors improperly used summary exhibits and failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bribery and obstruction of justice occurred. Nadine Menendez, who was tried after her husband and co-defendants to accommodate her medical treatment for breast cancer, is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 11. In an earlier trial that started in May 2024, a jury convicted Hana, real estate developer Fred Daibes, and the former senator last July. Last August, Judge Sidney H. Stein slapped Bob Menendez with an 11-year sentence; he's now scheduled to report to prison on June 17. Hana and Daibes reported to prison last month to begin serving their sentences — just over eight years and seven years, respectively. Sentencing for Uribe has been repeatedly postponed and is now set for Oct. 9 because he testified against his co-defendants in a cooperation deal with prosecutors. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
