That day, Laguna appeared as instructed, but he refused three different times to return to the consulate even after he was expressly told that his refusal to pick up the passport violated his removal and supervision orders and federal law. Before trial, the government moved to exclude any evidence suggesting that Laguna had a good-faith reason for refusing to comply with the removal order. Like the litigant who faces civil contempt charges for not making timely child-support payments, 628 F.3d 927, 932 (7th Cir. But, because Laguna claims that his excluded testimony violated his constitutional right to present a defense, “we review de novo the question of whether the evidentiary ruling had the effect of infringing that right while still taking into account the permissible scope of the district court’s discretion in evidentiary matters.” To support the theory that his intent evidence was improperly excluded, Laguna begins by noting that ICE never punished him for refusing to obtain a passport from 2004 to early 2010.
After officers could not convince him to pick up the passport, ICE revoked Laguna’s order of supervision and took him into custody. In response, Laguna argued that he should be permitted to offer testimony illustrating ICE’s course of dealings with him over the years because that relationship revealed that Laguna could not have willfully interfered with a final deportation order. First, Laguna was only sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment, which is not enough time for him to have obtained full judicial review. Instead, ICE actually liberalized his supervision order despite his noncompliance with the removal and supervision orders.
He filed this timely appeal after the district court denied his motion for a new trial. 2005), an argument neither party brought to our attention. With that in mind, we briefly address mootness because Laguna does not face many of the same collateral consequences as other felons. The uncontested evidence presented at trial shows that Laguna knew he was under a valid removal order and that he refused to travel to the Polish consulate on April 21 even after he was explicitly warned about the consequences of failing to appear.
- dating brasil
- 100 dating site in new zealand
- rihanna dating shia labeouf
- Sexchat with photo online
- rowupdating boundfield
And his conviction does not affect his right to vote in federal elections (he is not a U. citizen), nor does it change his immigration status (he was already removable based on his 2001 state-court convictions). In other words, Laguna’s evidence did not negate the government’s assertion that he (1) knew he was removable, (2) knew he needed to obtain a passport, and (3) knew his express refusal to do so contravened his removal order and federal law.
Nevertheless, this dispute remains live because Laguna faces a handful of less obvious consequences, including the possibility that any future testimony may be impeached, Fed R. 609, or the possibility that any future federal convictions may subject him to a criminal history upgrade, and thus, a longer sentence, U. Instead, his evidence only shows that he subjectively believed that he would not be prosecuted, which is no defense at all.
But, the district court prohibited Laguna from offering evidence showing that he was a good, law-abiding person, which according to the district court, skated too closely to jury nullification. entail adverse collateral legal consequences,” while noting that it did not canvass all of the possibilities in any detail). This predicted indifference is the basis for Laguna’s belief that he did not willfully violate § 1253(a)(1)(B). In other words, the district court found that the proposed evidence risked jury nullification. 1996) (“An unreasonable jury verdict, although unreviewable if it is an acquittal, is lawless, and the defendant has no right to invite the jury to act lawlessly.”). Under § 1253(a)(1)(B) and (C), the government need only prove two elements: (1) Laguna was an alien subject to final removal; and (2) Laguna willfully refused to make timely applications for travel documents or took action designed to hamper his departure.
After a brief jury trial, Laguna was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. The potential for these collateral consequences is enough for us to determine that Laguna’s appeal is not moot. Here, Laguna was only indicted for willfully interfering with his removal order during a brief eight-day period in 2010April 21-29.
Because those felonies qualified as crimes of moral turpitude under 8 U. To effectuate the deportation, the removal order required Laguna to obtain a Polish passport.