<p>Okay…this is not legal advice…and neither criminal law or immigration is my area of law, but, that said…</p>
<p>xiggi misunderstands “moral turpitude.” It has nothing to do with the intent of a particular person. Nor is whether a crime is one of moral turpitude determined by the facts of an individual case; it is determined by the nature of the crime of which someone is convicted. A judge can’t “rule” when someone is convicted that the crime doesn’t meet the standards for moral turpitude for immigration purposes. It just doesn’t work like that. </p>
<p>None of the examples given fit this case exactly, but I think there’s a good case to be made for the fact that invasion of privacy and witness tampering constitute crimes of moral turpitude.</p>
<p>Tyler’s privacy was violated, but was he outed? I doubt.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that Tyler was trying to hide his sexual orientation at all. He was choosing between a motel and a dorm, in his own words. And he chose to bring his lover into a dorm filled with students and let his roommate know, so he was already out, and good for him too.</p>
After Tyler’s death several of Dharun’s friends (social media contacts) reported he showed little or no remorse. Highly unlikely the defense would call them as character witnesses.</p>
<p>It depends. There are scenarios where those convictions could still stand even if the intimidation/bias conviction fell, or alternate scenarios where an appellate court could remand for retrial on the remaining charges. </p>
<p>Based on the superficial knowledge I have of the case, I think its likely that the convictions will stand up on appeal, but I would also guess that there are a number of issues that can be raised on appeal. If hypothetically the intimidation/bias statute were invalidated on appeal, then it could be determined that (a) the defendant was prejudiced by introduction of evidence going to that count, and thus is entitled to retrial; or (b) the invalidity of the underlying offense also undermines the witness & evidence tampering charges, on ground that it is not a crime to try to conceal noncriminal activities. </p>
<p>It’s also possible that those charges have legal weaknesses of their own. </p>
<p>When a person has no grounds whatsoever for appeal – the appeal is sometimes deemed frivolous. This case clearly does not fall into that category – the lawyers have bona fide, arguable issues to raise on appeal. That doesn’t mean that they will win or even should win – it’s one of those things that will come down to a judgment call by the appellate courts.</p>
<p>In most cases when there is a felony conviction, the defendant has to begin serving his sentence while the appeal is pending. It is possible to secure bail on appeal, but not a legal right. I’m just mentioning this in the event that there is outrage down the line over Ravi’s sentence or possible incarceration pending appeal.</p>
<p>Witness tampering would not fall under moral turpitude. It would not really matter as offenses of moral turpitude are only deportable offenses if committed within 5 years of admission to the US. Dharun Ravi has been in the US for a lot longer. </p>
<p>The only offenses that will really matter from an immigration standpoint will be the witness and evidence tampering charges (if the sentence for either charge is greater than one year). Third degree witness tampering (asking Wei not to testify) or evidence tampering (deleting tweets) may not rise to the level of aggravated felony offenses under the statute category of obstruction of justice such as subornation of perjury or bribery of witness (neither of which was charged here).</p>
<p>Haven’t read the thread, but I wanted to say that I’m kind of uncomfortable with the idea that this should happen to him just because the result was so bad. I think people have done way worse things and walked away scott-free. Clearly we can’t catch everybody. But punishing this isolated incident (as in, where the victim ended up committing suicide) isn’t going to change anybody’s behavior. And I think that what was very unfortunate here is that Clementi didn’t feel like he could receive adequate support from the school. And I would what part of the ordeal made him choose to end his life. He was already out to his family, for one thing.</p>
<p>Really? What is that I actually WROTE about moral turpitude that prompted your statement? What is it that I do not understand? Did I even discuss it? </p>
<p>I think you just joined Cedardweller is ascribing words to me that I never wrote, or being confused by what I wrote.</p>
<p>Fwiw, a line that I did write is that “It does not work like that” A conclusion based on the analysis of dozens and dozens of cases involved deported LPR by the interpretation of the AG of IIRIRA, and especially its retroactive reach.</p>
<p>Laws are passed because of the social harm that occurs in worst case scenarios. Every day there are thousands of people who get on the road after drinking and manage to make it home without getting caught or getting into accidents. But we have laws against drunk driving because of drunk drivers are more likely to cause serious accident than sober drivers. Similarly, if a drunk driver crashes into a tree & gets arrested, the punishment is going to be less than if the drunk driver runs over a child – even though the drunk driver’s actions and intent are the same in both instances.</p>
<p>Ravi was not charged with manslaughter or causing the death of another individual – he was charged a series of acts that were unlawful, demonstrate disregard and disrespect for the rights of another individual, and demonstrated disrespect for the law. </p>
<p>He was offered a very good deal and turned it down, so whatever sentence and consequences befall him are a result not only of his initial actions, but also of his subsequent refusal to accept responsibility for what he had done. If he had been truthful & cooperative with law enforcement, and demonstrated some level of remorse or sorrow over his roommate’s death… perhaps the chain of events leading to his conviction of a multiple crimes would have been very different.</p>
<p>Since you shared that the law passed by Congress did not have room for discretion, do you mind defining your use of the term sentencing? </p>
<p>What happens when the crime has sentencing guidelines for 1 to 5 years? What happens if the judge imposes no jail time on a sentence of 13 months? What if suspends 12 months and confines someone for 30 days? </p>
<p>Does the law require actual prison time of one year or more, or is it sufficient for a conviction to be punishABLE to a sentence of more than ONE year?</p>
<p>Again, the plea bargain might have been no bargain at all … If the charges resulted in deportable offenses. Given the extent of the charges presented by the prosecution, it is doubtful they would not have maintained felonies punishable to terms longer than one year.</p>
<p>The actual sentence has to be longer than one year. It is irrelevant if it is punishable from 1 to 5 years. It is actually common for judges to issue sentences just short of one year precisely for that reason. </p>
<p>On the other hand for immigration purposes, the length of sentence SERVED would not matter. If he gets a two year sentence but only serves six months, it is still a deportable offense of two years. So amount of jail time does not matter.</p>
<p>In regards to the plea bargain I do believe that none of the charges would have been for deportable offenses. I don’t believe for instance he had to plead guilty to charges of obstruction of justice which could have been deportable offenses. Otherwise, I agree that it would have been no plea bargain at all. I don’t believe the prosecution was that twisted.</p>
<h2>In regards to the plea bargain I do believe that none of the charges would have been for deportable offenses. I don’t believe for instance he had to plead guilty to charges of obstruction of justice which could have been deportable offenses. Otherwise, I agree that it would have been no plea bargain at all. I don’t believe the prosecution was that twisted</h2>
<p>If the offenses were not deportable, why did the prosecution agree to “help” with immigration? I think it is clear they were deportable, and that the prosecution knew their “help” would be futile, it would up to ICE.</p>
<p>In reply to your post #228, in which you ask </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In your post #174, you wrote: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was responding to that post. I did NOT ascribe to you word that you “never wrote.” I think the meaning I ascribed to them was perfectly reasonable.</p>
<p>Inasmuch as the case was reversed by the SCOTUS, it is important to remember that very few LPR actually fight the system to the end as most judicial remedies are unavailable. Most, if not all of them are in ICE custody during the appeal. This explains why so few challenges to the determination of offenses as aggravated felonies by the AG underlings can be cited.</p>
<p>There seems to be confusion between two separate issues. One is the appeal of the original sentence which is always available and has nothing to do with the AG or the ICE. The second is the removal order which can also be appealed. </p>
<p>If the conviction stands on appeal and after the person has served ou the sentence, then deportation proceedings may start.</p>
<p>In the above example, the defendant conceded he actually was deportable, but because he was never actually convicted of an aggravated felony, just two indpendent possession misdemeanors the ICE could not deport him. </p>
<p>There never was an issue of creating some new type of deportable offense, simply a clarification that only the actual conviction matters for removal not some hypothetical conviction. That was the precise point of my previous post.</p>
<p>Except that I did NOT write those words; Were you to read my post with a tad more attention, you might notice the >> text << that indicates I was quoting an earlier post.</p>
<p>A post -Calmom’s post 164- that I addressed with “Calmom, you could not be more wrong in the above analysis or in the subsequent posts where you discuss aggravated felonies and CIMT.”</p>
<p>It does seem that we both found issues with Calmom’s statement. I knew I would not have a written a statement I consider entirely off the wall.</p>