Tweet
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?
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