-
·
United States v. Maricopa Settlement Agreement
This document is the settlement agreement of _United States v. Maricopa County._ This agreement was designed to reform the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s (MCSO) unconstitutional policing practices, racial profiling, and retaliation against critics.
-
·
U.S. v. Brown (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2003)
The court found that the defendant’s right to confront witnesses was not violated when he was denied access to the witness’s immigration file and was not allowed to call an expert witness regarding the unusual immigration circumstances of the witness. The court found that the cross-examination of the witness sufficiently addressed bias/motive.
-
·
U.S. v. Dixon (U.S. v. Foster) (U.S. June 28, 1993)
Consolidated with U.S. v. Foster. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a victim to enforce her protection order without barring criminal prosecution by double jeopardy as long as the criminal contempt proceeding and the criminal prosecution each require proof of additional elements under the Blockburger “same elements” test (June 28, 1993).
-
·
U.S. v. Locascio (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 1993)
In the case of U.S. v. Locascio, the court found that the prosecution was not in possession of information acquired by federal agencies uninvolved in the state’s investigation or trial.
-
·
U.S. v. Warda (C.A.A.F. Sep. 29, 2023)
In the case of U.S. v Warda, while ultimately holding that the Military Judge abused his discretion by failing to abate the proceedings, the court upheld the Military Judge’s decision regarding the discovery of VAWA confidentiality protected information. The Court found that documentation of the victim’s immigration status was not in the custody or control…
-
·
State v. Niola Agudo (Minn. Ct. App. June 26, 2023)
The Minnesota Court of Appeals, in an nonprecedential decision, decided that district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony regarding the U visa process and the victim’s immigration status from the criminal case. As the district court observed, Niola failed to establish any connection between the U visa process and the child’s…
-
·
State v. Ontiveros-Silverio (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2023)
Evidence at issue: Defendant (charged with criminal sexual conduct against his 10 yr old niece) wanted to bring in evidence of the Defendant’s own recent immigration status and work permit. His theory was that his newfound work permit had created friction in the family (jealousy perhaps) and caused the 10 yr old to make the…
-
·
State v. Rodriguez (Minn. Ct. App. May 23, 2022)
Evidence at issue: In criminal sexual conduct trial, defense wanted to cross-examine 13 year old victim about her immigration status to show she fabricated her story of abuse so she could apply for a U Visa. The trial court required an offer of proof but defendant couldn’t come up with anything supporting his theory. Court…
-
·
State v. Velasquez-Lazo (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 1 2021)
Velasquez-Lazo was charged with second-degree criminal conduct when the victim was under 13 and he was more than 36 months older than the victim. He challenged his conviction and defense wanted to admit testimony from the V’s aunt, who reported that she overheard a conversation between V and her sister where they were talking about…
-
·
State v. Velasquez-Lazo (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 1 2021)
Evidence at issue: (1) In a CSC trial involving a 13 yr old V, defense wanted to admit testimony from the V’s aunt, who reported that she overheard a conversation between V and her sister where they were talking about “feeling bad that they had to fabricate claims against the defendant in order to get…
National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project