CT Supreme Court rules judges must allow questions about immigration status of prosecution witnesses
Criminal defendants have a right to question undocumented people about their immigration status and potential bias when they testify for the prosecution under a program that rewards their cooperation with immunity from deportation and other citizenship benefits, the state Supreme Court said this week.
The court issued its first analysis of what has become known as the federal government’s U visa program late Monday when it ordered a new trial for a Danbury man convicted of child abuse charges in part on testimony by two women who faced deportation for being in the country illegally.
The U visa program is similar to a cooperation agreement. Undocumented migrants who assist authorities in criminal cases are eligible for U visa citizenship benefits that would not otherwise be available, including immunity from deportation, permission to work and, in some cases, a fast track to naturalization.
The Supreme Court, as have courts elsewhere, said the citizenship benefits create a motive for undocumented witnesses to falsely support prosecution cases in order to qualify for benefits that allow them to remain in the country.
In the past, trial judges have ruled that questions by defendants about a witness’ immigration status are irrelevant. But the court said that criminal defendants have a right to ask questions that demonstrate to a jury bias or motivation by a witness to fabricate.
In the Danbury case, the defendant was not permitted to ask about the immigration status of two undocumented women, both mothers, who qualified for the U visa program. To protect the identities of child victims, the names of the defendant and the women were withheld from the decision.
“The defendant argues that the rulings were harmful because they prevented him from presenting to the jury a plausible theory as to why (the women) would falsely implicate him in the alleged crimes, and why they would manipulate their children to do so,” Justice Joan K. Alexander, a former prosecutor, wrote for a unanimous court.
The court ruled the Danbury defendant should have been allowed to question witnesses about immigration status, but reversed his conviction on other grounds. It said it was offering its analysis of the U visa program because it is likely to arise in the future.
The U visa program was enacted by Congress in 2000 to help law enforcement prosecute serious crimes against undocumented immigrants by encouraging cooperation. It created a new visa classification that permits undocumented victims to qualify for the citizenship benefits by assisting law enforcement.
