Immigration
It has been roughly eight months since the beginning of the second Trump administration and some of the changes at the federal level have had an impact on Massachusetts courts. Immigration law issues now loom larger than ever in criminal matters. Individuals who are not documented, or have pending claims, such as for asylum, are at risk of detention and deportation, pre-trial. The pre-trial part of this is what makes today’s landscape different.
In a high profile incident out of Boston Municipal Court’s Central Division, a defendant was taken into ICE custody mid-trial. The federal government refused to return him to the court, triggering a forceful condemnation from the trial judge, though ultimately to no avail. In less high profile incidents, criminal defendants (who have not yet been tried or convicted) have been taken into ICE custody outside of courthouses and when “released” from county jails. While policies may be in place to minimize overt coordination between local court and federal officials, a less formal network of law enforcement has made the courthouse a place of even higher stakes for the undocumented.
For documented non-citizens, the so called alien warning, a statement judges recite to any defendant making a plea deal, warns that the court’s acceptance of the plea could “lead to deportation, exclusion from the U.S., or denial of naturalization.” Those words have more teeth than ever.
Public Defense
Another major development in the MA courts is the work action that has been undertaken by Bar Advocates. In addition to my private practice, I am a Bar Advocate, which means I accept a limited number of court appointed cases for indigent criminal defendants. I do this because I believe that all should have highly qualified counsel when faced with criminal charges that could lead to a loss of liberty. However, the Massachusetts Legislature has severely underfunded criminal defense for decades, and the stagnant wage for this work has allowed the program to wither and leading to acute shortages of counsel.
As a result of these untenable circumstances, a critical mass of Bar Advocates have been declining new court appointed cases and advocating for a fair and sustainable wage. An emergency protocol has been put into place that has resulted in the dismissal of many criminal cases, although the Commonwealth is allowed to re-file the cases in the near future. While pressure from Bar Advocates prompted the Legislature to pass a small wage increase in July, before their month-long August recess, the crisis remains unresolved and is now before the state’s highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court. The SJC is tasked with answering the question as to whether it has the authority to set wages for court appointed counsel given the current crisis, notwithstanding the Legislature’s inadequate action, or more rightly, inaction.
During these stressful times, many people within the court system are under extra pressure, from clerks and judges, to court officers and lawyers. I continue to serve my clients during these difficult times.
