Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breaking And Entering Charge Contest: Immigration Consequences

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Breaking And Entering Charge Contest: Immigration Consequences

    Recent visitor to the U.S. was found guilty of 'breaking and entering.' Because of the potential immigration consequences, the alien plans to appeal claiming that the evidence against the person is not sufficient to support a conviction; what is your opinion, do you think he can do so (read below)

    In June, 2001, the manager of the place where the alien worked closed the store. As part of the lock-up procedure, he left $100 in the cash register and placed the remaining cash proceeds, $50 for that day, and the credit card receipts in an envelope which he took from a box of unused envelopes kept behind the counter for this purpose; he marked this envelope "Wed." In another unused envelope which he labeled "J.'s D C Bill" he put $22, payment for his own dry cleaning. He then placed both behind the counter underneath the cash register, to be retrieved by his wife the following day. When his wife opened the store the following morning she found the cash register emptied and these envelopes missing. She called her husband, who then called the police. As police arrived at the store, the manager's wife, while pulling out one of the dry cleaning bags to hold clothes, discovered the two envelopes which had been ripped open and from which the cash had been removed. Upon investigation police found that the outside doorknob at the rear door of the store had been forced open. The police later found fingerprints on the envelopes, one of which, located at the back of the envelope labeled "Wed," matched the left thumb of the alien, one of 13 candidates produced by the database of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System computer after a fingerprint examiner scanned the envelopes into that system. Subsequently in October a grand jury returned a one-count indictment against the alien for 'breaking and entering.' The case proceeded to trial where the store manager described the alien as an individual who had been seen frequently around the dry cleaner and adjacent stores in the spring of 2001. He stated that the alien would visit the store once or twice daily to chat with him. On several occasions, he had allowed the alien access to the back of the store to use the restroom. He testified that he did not give anyone permission to enter the store on the night of the break-in. The fingerprint examiner with the Cleveland Police Department, testified regarding the procedure she employed in comparing the fingerprint found on the envelope marked "Wed" with the fingerprints of 13 candidates produced by the computer database and how she determined that fingerprint matched the alien's left thumbprint; before this testimony, the parties had stipulated that the fingerprints on the "tempering" card with against which the examiner compared the print from the envelope were those of the alien's. The alien did not offer any defense. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of 'breaking and entering'

    Can the alien appeal successfully claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he was guilty of 'breaking and entering'? It's obvious that the state only presented circumstantial evidence. Also his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, because the state's chief witness, the store manager lacked credibilty.

    Finally what are the immigration consequences of this offense, in case the appeal won't be successful?

  • #2
    Recent visitor to the U.S. was found guilty of 'breaking and entering.' Because of the potential immigration consequences, the alien plans to appeal claiming that the evidence against the person is not sufficient to support a conviction; what is your opinion, do you think he can do so (read below)

    In June, 2001, the manager of the place where the alien worked closed the store. As part of the lock-up procedure, he left $100 in the cash register and placed the remaining cash proceeds, $50 for that day, and the credit card receipts in an envelope which he took from a box of unused envelopes kept behind the counter for this purpose; he marked this envelope "Wed." In another unused envelope which he labeled "J.'s D C Bill" he put $22, payment for his own dry cleaning. He then placed both behind the counter underneath the cash register, to be retrieved by his wife the following day. When his wife opened the store the following morning she found the cash register emptied and these envelopes missing. She called her husband, who then called the police. As police arrived at the store, the manager's wife, while pulling out one of the dry cleaning bags to hold clothes, discovered the two envelopes which had been ripped open and from which the cash had been removed. Upon investigation police found that the outside doorknob at the rear door of the store had been forced open. The police later found fingerprints on the envelopes, one of which, located at the back of the envelope labeled "Wed," matched the left thumb of the alien, one of 13 candidates produced by the database of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System computer after a fingerprint examiner scanned the envelopes into that system. Subsequently in October a grand jury returned a one-count indictment against the alien for 'breaking and entering.' The case proceeded to trial where the store manager described the alien as an individual who had been seen frequently around the dry cleaner and adjacent stores in the spring of 2001. He stated that the alien would visit the store once or twice daily to chat with him. On several occasions, he had allowed the alien access to the back of the store to use the restroom. He testified that he did not give anyone permission to enter the store on the night of the break-in. The fingerprint examiner with the Cleveland Police Department, testified regarding the procedure she employed in comparing the fingerprint found on the envelope marked "Wed" with the fingerprints of 13 candidates produced by the computer database and how she determined that fingerprint matched the alien's left thumbprint; before this testimony, the parties had stipulated that the fingerprints on the "tempering" card with against which the examiner compared the print from the envelope were those of the alien's. The alien did not offer any defense. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of 'breaking and entering'

    Can the alien appeal successfully claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he was guilty of 'breaking and entering'? It's obvious that the state only presented circumstantial evidence. Also his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, because the state's chief witness, the store manager lacked credibilty.

    Finally what are the immigration consequences of this offense, in case the appeal won't be successful?

    Comment


    • #3
      First you say the alien worked there, then you say he hung around the area and was a frequent visitor.

      Was the dry cleaning business near the store?

      Was the alien an actual employee of the store?

      If he was, what were his duties and schedule?

      Were the envelopes standard mailing envelopes or store deposit/drop envelopes?

      If they were standard mailing envelopes, did the store sell them on an individual basis or were they for store use only?

      What kind of a store only has $50.00 proceeds from the day?

      Why did the wife have posession of the dry cleaning if the money was in an envelope?

      Where was this dry cleaning located?

      What does "while pulling out one of the dry cleaning bags to hold clothes" mean?

      Does the store have a security camera?

      Comment


      • #4
        deport illegal aliens

        Comment


        • #5
          I think the fingerprints on the envelope may not be enough evidence. After all, superimposed fingerprints are not all strange in this case. Assuming it remains completely untouched, it's true that fingerprints left on porous surfaces such as paper, checks, wood, etc., may lose some of their quality due to the absorptive properties of the surface, but have been known to be retrievable from paper even after 50 years. Yet,if there are two fingerprints on top of each other, i.e., superimposed fingerprints, they are very difficult to separate and can become very confusing to a forensic scientist trying to follow the friction-ridge lines (Although by using graphic imaging computer programs, it may be possible to drop out one fingerprint and bring the other to the forefront to make it more visible.)

          Comment


          • #6
            Joesphine Schmoe has some very valid concerns about this post ... further details are needed ...

            Comment


            • #7
              What do you mean, BCG?

              Comment


              • #8
                depending on the answers, there is a lot of "shadow of doubt" to cast here!

                Comment


                • #9
                  You mean, Josephine, this may well be a fake thread?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    no, i think the guy could have been set up!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't think so, Jos, I mean many people use entrapment as an excuse, when in fact they have actually committed the crime

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No one is using entrapment as an excuse. I don't care if he is guilty or not. I am looking at the facts presented before me. However, I need more information.

                        If the alien actually worked there, his fingerprints would be all over the place, thus he could have been set up.

                        I have to know what kind of store it was. $50.00 cash for daily receipts. Hmmmm.

                        Say it was a high end gift shop, probably would have low cash/high credit receipts.

                        But what if it was a convenience store? It should have had much higher daily cash receipts than $50.00. If he was set up, they would not want to lose a lot of money. I would like to know what the true receipts were for that day, but even those may not have been "rung" through, to show a lower cash receipt.

                        Another question, where were the envelopes found? Was the back doorknob dusted for fingerprints? Etc, etc, etc.

                        What bothers me is the alien did not offer any defense. Might as well plead guilty then.

                        Did he even have a lawyer?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You need legal advice, from an experienced attorney!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Indeed Bow ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Get a lawyer now!

                              Comment

                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily

                              Archives

                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board

                              Resources

                              Blogs

                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation

                              Attorney2Attorney

                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW

                              EB-5

                              移民日报

                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us

                              Questions/Comments

                              SUBSCRIBE

                              Immigration Daily



                              Working...
                              X