Thread: OK: Bill now faces new legal challenge

By Jay F. Marks
Staff Writer
An appeals court is being asked to decide whether judges can question defendants about their residency status under the state's new immigration law.


Attorney Joan Lopez said Oklahoma County District Judge Jerry Bass forced two men to incriminate themselves Friday when he asked them if they were legal residents of the United States. Bass sent both men to jail when they acknowledged they were not in the country legally.

Lopez said the judge's questions violated the men's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. She said Bass does not have the authority to inquire about their immigration status under the new state law that went into effect Nov. 1.

Lopez filed a writ Friday afternoon with the state Court of Criminal Appeals seeking to have the men released from jail based on those arguments, but the court will not consider it until next week, she said.

Lopez also contends the new Oklahoma immigration law is not valid because it is pre-empted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1986.

‘It's unconstitutional'
Lopez was in court with another client Friday when she heard Bass asking the two men about their immigration status.

She objected and offered to represent Gregorio Robles and Luis Mauricio Ochoa for free on the issue.

"It just shows my position on that law,â€

IMO the status of a defendant should be KNOWN before they ever have their court date

So what's next? You can't ask a murderer if he shot and killed somebody?
This is why they have the miranda law and the person is told they have the right to remain silent if they confess, oh well!

kniggit wrote:

IMO the status of a defendant should be KNOWN before they ever have their court date

You're absolutely right! The defendants status as citizen, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrant should be considered prior to sentencing. Why would you put an illegal immigrant on probation? Furthermore, a legal immigrants status can be revoked for certain crimes and the immigrant deported.

How do they get away with this crap? Do we have the RIGHT to know who belongs in our country, especially if they've committed a crime? As far as I'm concerned, illegals should not have rights under our law, since they broke it to be here in the first place.

Originally Posted by MountainDog

So what's next? You can't ask a murderer if he shot and killed somebody?
This is why they have the miranda law and the person is told they have the right to remain silent if they confess, oh well!

I would have to think that right there decides it. They could have chosen to take the 5th.

...if they would have came here legally they might have known more about our laws and the silent options they had. oh well

Lopez said the judge's questions violated the men's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Umm, the two guys turned out to be ILLEGAL immigrants. They DON'T HAVE 5th Amendment rights, as those are only available for LEGAL AMERICANS, NOT illegal foreigners!!! Why do they keep letting illegals be tried under U.S. constitutional laws when they really aren't eligible to be under U.S. constitutional rights?? Where does it say illegals get to plead under different U.S. Amendments?

TexasGal

OKLAHOMA CITY -- An attorney for two men who were jailed when they told a judge they were not in the country legally says they should be freed because their constitutional rights were violated.

Attorney Joan Lopez asked the state Court of Criminal Appeals Friday to have the men released because the judge's questions about their immigration status violated the men's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Lopez said Oklahoma County District Judge Jerry Bass forced the men to incriminate themselves when he asked them if they were legal residents of the United States. Bass sent both men to jail when they acknowledged they were not in the country legally.


Bass does not have the authority to inquire about their immigration status under the new state law that went into effect Nov. 1, the attorney said.

Lopez also contends the new Oklahoma immigration law is not valid because it is pre-empted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1986.

Lopez was in court with another client Friday when she heard Bass asking the two men about their immigration status. She objected and offered to represent Gregorio Robles and Luis Mauricio Ochoa for free on the issue.

"It just shows my position on that law," Lopez said. "I believe it's unconstitutional."

House Bill 1804 requires local and state law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of anyone arrested on felony and drunken driving complaints, and then coordinate with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to have illegal immigrants deported.

Critics have challenged the new law unsuccessfully in federal court in Tulsa, but Lopez is the first one to question it in court in Oklahoma City.

Both of Lopez's new clients were supposed to be on probation instead of behind bars.

Robles, 28, expected to receive a suspended sentence in two misdemeanor domestic abuse cases.

Ochoa, 21, just completed a six-month stint in a prison boot camp, earning a seven-year suspended sentence in a plea agreement with prosecutors.

The judge said he had information the two men were not in the country legally so he acted accordingly based on the new immigration law.

District Attorney David Prater confirmed one of his prosecutors advised the judge Robles may be an illegal immigrant.

Prater said the spirit of the new law means law enforcement officers should speak up when they suspect someone of being an illegal immigrant. He said prosecutors will share such suspicions with judges, but not recommend any specific course of action.

Lopez was in court with another client Friday when she heard Bass asking the two men about their immigration status. She objected and offered to represent Gregorio Robles and Luis Mauricio Ochoa for free on the issue.

I wish the author had expounded on how this attorney was able to voice an objection in a case where she was not the attorney of record. In most courts that would get you a citation for contempt.