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?

This week the International Criminal Court (ICC) began its first trial. Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga Dilyo is charged with the use of child soldiers in the recent civil war in The Congo.

According to Human Rights Watch Lubanga, the former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) is one of four Congolese leaders charged by the ICC with the use of child soldiers. Also in custody are Germain Katanga of the Ituri Patriotic Resistance Forces (FRPI), a Ngiti-based group, and Mathieu Ngudjolo, of the Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI), a Lendu-based militia. Bosco Ntaganda, a former comrade of Lubanga in the UPC is reportedly cooperating with the Congolese government and has not been arrest even though the Congo a signer of the Rome Statute which formed the ICC is duty bound to arrest him.

Lubanga is not the first person put on trial for human rights violations involving child soldiers.has charged nine people and convicted four of them for similar human rights violations involving child soldiers under the age of 15. The use of child soldiers disrupts families, causes long term psychological damage to the kids and destroys their childhood.

The trial of Lubanga is the result of events that occurred between September 2002 and August 2003 in Ituri, a part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. During that period according to the United Nations and the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers their were approximately 30,000 child soldiers in the Congo.

The trial of Lubanga not only spotlights the dangers of the recruitment and use of child soldiers, it leads the way to future prosecution of others involved in the recruitment of child soldiers. But perhaps more importantly it indicates that in the future the ICC is going to be a force in the prosecution of human rights violations.