Friday, we looked at the problems that immigrants have with the law. Today we look at another aspect of the problem.

Juan Teresco was convicted of attempted assault, an aggravated felony, much like the thee problem of Satbir Singh we discussed, Friday.

As a result of his 1997 conviction, Turesco, a citizen of El Salvador was deported. After being deported he came back to the country. In 2006 he was arrested in New York and he gave the name of Danny Ortega. After being told that it was a crime to lie to a Federal agent, he admitted that he was Juan Turesco. He also admitted that he was born in El Salvador and that he had been deported. At the time of his arrest the officers found an ID in the name of Danny Ortega on him. He was indicted for illegally reentering the country.

But Turesco’s troubles were just beginning. He told his lawyer, a Federal Public Defender that his name was really Danny Ortega and that he was a US citizen. He gave his lawyer a copy of a birth certificate for Danny Ortega. His lawyer then forwarded the birth certificate to the US attorney expecting a dismissal of the case.

But instead the US attorney got a superceding indictment charging Turesco with illegally entering the country, falsely claiming to be a United States citizen and an aggravated identity theft.

At trial, the government called the real Danny Ortega and Ortega’s mother to show that Turesco lied about his identification. They also called the INS agent who witnessed Turesco’s being placed on a plane and being deported in 1997.. Furthermore they called a fingerprint expert to testify that Turesco’s fingerprints were identical to the fingerprints of the person deported in 1997.

Turesco was convicted on all three counts. He was sentenced to 125 months on the illegal reentry and lying about his citizenship. He was give a 24 month consecutive sentence on the aggravated identity theft count,

The trial judge refused to give an instruction that the jury had to find that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Turesco knew that the identification belonged to someone else. Therefore the appellate court reversed the conviction on count three which was an aggravated identity theft based on the recent Supreme Court decision in Flores-Figuroa v. Holder (See post of May 6, 2009) finding that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the false ID belonged to someone else.

After the trial judge gave most of his instructions he adjourned the court for the day. The next morning he told the lawyers that the marshals told him that Turesco refused to come to court. Turesco’s lawyer asked the court to wait until he could go to the detention center to get his client. The court refused. The judge instructed the jury to ignore Turesco’s absence from the court. While a co-counsel represented Turesco, his lawyer went and got him. Although Turesco had earlier begged to come to court, the marshal had refused to double cuff him which was necessary due to a shoulder injury. His attorney asked for a mistrial on Fifth and Sixth amendment grounds. The court denied the motion. During deliberation the jury asked to see Turesco and their request was granted.

The appellate court found that Turesco had a right to be present but that the right could be waived. It further found that the trial court had not held the necessary evidentiary hearing to determine if Turesco waived the right. But it also found that due to the overwhelming amount of evidence and due to Turesco’s presence when the jury wanted to see him the error was harmless and he would have been convicted anyway.

The lesson is don’t lie to the authorities. Don’t talk to the authorities but in any case don’t lie to them. The second lesson is don’t lie to your lawyer. It sure got Turesco is a lot more trouble when he said that Ortega’s birth certificate was his. And the third lesson is does anyone really believe Turesco deserves 125 months for his violation of the law?

Three leaders of Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front were convicted of various charges including mutilation, terrorism, rape, forced marriage, sexual slavery, and the enlistment of child soldiers by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Special Court for Sierra Leone was set up jointly by the government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations to try leaders of the 1992-2002 civil war. Five other leaders were previously convicted but in the most recent trial, Issa Sesay, the leader of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Morris Kallon, a battlefield commander, and Augustine Gbao, the RUF’s Chief of Security, were convicted of between 14 and 18 counts of crimes against humanity.

A sentencing date has not been set. In accordance with the polices of most countries the Court does not have the power to impose the death penalty and sentences must be for a specific number of years.

The stories are horrendous. Prisoners were given the choice, according to the Associate Press of having long sleeves or short sleeves, i.e. having their arms cut off at their shoulders or at their wrists. Women were forced to marry revolutionary leaders. After the revolution their communities refused to take them back so they were forced to stay with their “husbands.”

To convict the eight of these crimes Sierra Leone had to invent new crimes since the charged offenses did not previously exist. For example, while mutilation may have been against the law in Sierra Leone, there was no law making it a crime against humanity.

The acts were horrendous and few would doubt that the three should be put away for a long time. But questions are raised. Certainly under the US Constitution the charges would be considered ex post facto. We would find it an abuse of power to create crimes or raise possible penalties after the crimes had been committed. We would find it obnoxious to convict people and to sentence them to greater periods of imprisonment than they were eligible to receive when they committed the crime. We would say they did not have proper notice.

The second question is when do we convict revolutionary leaders for political acts. If the United States had lost the revolution should George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson been hung for treason. (Yes it probably would have happened.) If the north lost the Civil War should Abraham Lincoln been hung for the crimes at Andersonville. And more recently should George Bush be charged with crimes against humanity for Abu Ghraib. Perhaps in the case of torture or crimes against humanity it is appropriate. The crimes were atrocious. Can we as human beings tolerate such.

On the other hand in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Should Jefferson have been hung by his neck for writing this?