Yahoo News 
New York top court: Jury trials needed when deportation a risk
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York State's highest court said on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution guarantees jury trials to noncitizens charged with crimes that could subject them to deportation, in a divided ruling that prompted a call for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
The Court of Appeals rejected an argument by Bronx county prosecutors that deportation is merely a civil consequence of criminal convictions, and that defendants charged with minor yet deportable crimes did not deserve jury trials under the Sixth Amendment.
"It is now beyond cavil that the penalty of deportation is among the most extreme and that it may, in some circumstances, rival incarceration in its loss of liberty," Justice Leslie Stein wrote for a 5-2 majority.
The decision coincides with moves by the Trump administration to speed up deportations and tighten U.S. borders. The administration was not involved in the case.
Within New York, it means noncitizens are entitled to jury trials even if the deportable crimes they are charged with carry maximum prison terms of six months or less.
The majority ordered a new trial for Saylor Suazo, who was convicted in a bench trial on misdemeanor charges carrying a maximum three-month jail term, for allegedly throwing the mother of his children to the floor and then choking and striking her.
Suazo appeared to be in the United States on a "visa overstay," making him deportable, court papers show.
The appeals court said it was confident that state trial judges are "competent" to address potential immigration issues.
Justice Michael Garcia, a former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, dissented, saying the threat of deportation did not transform "petty" offenses into serious crimes.
He also accused the majority of allowing federal immigration law to override the state legislature's view of the severity of various crimes, as reflected in their maximum punishments.
"It is doubtful that importing federal immigration law into the penalty analysis was something the Supreme Court intended when it made the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury for 'serious' offenses applicable to the states," he wrote.
"In the end, the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to settle this issue. [I]t should do so."
Mark Zeno, a Columbia Law School lecturer representing Suazo, had no immediate comment.
The office of Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case is People v Suazo, New York State Court of Appeals, No. 117.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Grant McCool)
See Also:
