What Are the Chances Webcam Suicide Defendant Will Be Deported?

http://www.edgeonthenet.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=crime&sc2=news&sc3=&id=130987

by Steve Weinstein

EDGE Editor-In-Chief

Friday Mar 16, 2012

Everyone has been following the dramatic case of Dharun Ravi. The former student at Rutgers University in New Jersey set up a webcam and invited others to watch his gay roommate entertain another man in their dorm room.

Now, a jury is deciding Ravi’s fate. Rather than accept a plea bargain by pleading guilty, Ravi rolled the dice by going to trial. By doing so, he also exposed himself to possible deportation. 

 

Ravi and his parents are immigrants from India who reside here as permanent residents. He faces 15 charges, some of them felonies. By law, if convicted of certain felonies, he can be permanently barred from the United States. 

 

But what are the chances of sentence actually being carried out? EDGE spoke to one of the most prominent attorneys who specialize in such cases about this very public trial. 

 

Now in private practice in New York, Michael Wildes is a former federal prosecutor and mayor of Englewood, N.J. He has appeared on CNN and other newscasts as an expert on deportation cases. Wildes represented the government in several high-profile immigration cases, including one prohibiting former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi from residing in New Jersey during a United Nations summit. 

 

According to Wildes, if a person is charged with a felony conviction of more than a year in jail -- or if under a year if the crime is one of "moral turpitude" under the law -- the convicted defendant can, indeed, be deported. Not only that, but he very likely would be. 

 

“Very likely if convicted, he would be placed into removal proceedings," Wildes said. The only remedy would be if Ravi could prove that he would be subject to torture in an in Indian jail; highly unlikely to stick, according to Wildes. Additionally, he would be serving his time in a U.S. jail before deportation; it’s highly unlikely that, upon arrival in India, he would be seized by authorities there and put to torture. 

 

There is one other avenue of possible escape: claiming that his removal would prove an insurmountable hardship to his family; also nearly impossible in this case, Wildes noted. Nor would his age (he’s under 21) or having been a college student have any bearing. Having reached the "age of majority," that is, over 18, he is considered a full adult under the law.

The operative term for deportation is "aggravated felon." Would that apply to Ravi? Yes, Wildes believes, if he is convicted of the crimes with which he is accused. "This is a cutting-edge case," the lawyer added. "He really feels innocent, that he committed no crime. He felt it might have been in poor taste, but not criminal in nature." (Wildes added that neither he nor anyone else knows what kind of deal the prosecution offered Ravi’s lawyers in return for a plea deal.)

The governor, of course, can commute the conviction. But, given the gravity of what happened to Tyler Clementi, the shy, aspiring violinist who so dramatically ended his life by jumping off the massive George Washington Bridge into Manhattan, and the attendant publicity, it is unlikely in the extreme that Chris Christie, a Republican with half an eye on higher office, would intervene on his behalf. 

 

The case has fascinated the legal world, because of the intersection of so many circumstances that are only making their way into the legal world: bias via Internet spying; intimidation and humiliation via webcam; bullying through webcam. 

 

If convicted, Ravi will have to surrender his passport and his family will have to post a hefty bond. Any conviction, of course, will probably be suspended pending the inevitable repeal. Ravi comes from a wealthy family that has made it clear that it intends to stand by him.

Even so, Wildes concluded, "It all goes to show that if he had a deal and didn’t do it, he either thought he had a very good immigration lawyer or he has a very bad criminal lawyer."

The big costs of drug crimes, especially for immigrants

http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/03/the_big_costs_of_drug_crimes_-.html

Published: Monday, March 26, 2012, 12:02 PM

By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist

Spend any time in a New Jersey city after nightfall, and it’s clear: young people come out when the sun goes down. For most, a night out is harmless enough. But once drugs enter the picture, there can be serious consequences.

These consequences can be most severe for immigrants. Besides the adverse health effects and incidence of violence that may effect anyone involved in drug-related crime, for a noncitizen even a misdemeanor conviction can lead to mandatory detention and deportation. This is true even for persons who have been living here legally for most of their lives, and who have spouses and children who are U.S. citizens.

Possession of small amounts of marijuana is the most common drug violation resulting in arrest in New Jersey. The majority of these arrests disproportionately affect Latino immigrant communities, despite studies showing whites are the principal users of the drug. The effects on these communities, which include large numbers of recent immigrants and visa holders, are immediate and significant. Detention and deportation are real possibilities for immigrants convicted of even low-level drug offenses. Only a narrow exception is extended to first-time drug offenders with legal immigration status who hope to avoid deportation.

Perhaps more alarming are the ancillary effects: the ways in which drug crime affects those not directly engaged in drug possession or sale. For instance, the recent shutdown of a popular restaurant in New York where police suspected drugs were being sold on the premises, and a probe into a Hoboken restaurant in 2009 believed to be the seat of a major drug ring led to the suspension of employees.

Under the law, simply being within reach of drugs may be legally actionable, meaning in situations like these, even employees not directly engaged in drug activity could be at risk. Such incidents could directly affect immigrant communities, many members of which are employed in the restaurant industry. In this uncertain economy, even a temporary job hiatus can be harmful – and depending on an individual's visa status, loss of employment could result in immediate forfeiture of legal immigration status and permanently forestall the path to citizenship.

Even those not subject to deportation can expect to have a more difficult time finding and maintaining employment. And, as is true for those facing any legal charge, individuals should expect to face major expenses from defense attorneys (if they decline counsel from chronically overworked public defenders), immigration attorneys (where applicable) and court fees. These costs are often prohibitive for hardworking families pushed to the brink by financial hardship.

From adverse health effects to compromised safety to financial hardship, it’s hard to overemphasize the importance of helping New Jersey residents understand the significant costs associated with drug crime – and the particular consequences affecting those with pending immigration status. Through education, we can help young people and others to make better decisions by avoiding the significant personal and communal costs of entering the criminal justice system.

Michael Wildes is the managing partner of the U.S. immigration law firm Wildes & Weinberg, P.C. Mr. Wildes is a former federal prosecutor and completed two terms as the Mayor of Englewood, where he resides.

 

 

Former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi 

faces jail for spying on gay roommate

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/peeper_gamble_flops_WF4paPQ2Kg68h5bpXNEhnO#ixzz1pZHD20mx

By LEONARD GREENE

Last Updated: 10:12 AM, March 17, 2012

Posted: 1:28 AM, March 17, 2012

He should have taken the plea deal.

Ex-Rutgers student Dharun Ravi yesterday was slapped with a guilty verdict that could land him years in prison — and lead to his deportation — after using a Web cam to spy on a gay roommate who later committed suicide.

The 20-year-old’s sensational conviction — on all 15 counts — in a New Brunswick, NJ, court came after he had turned up his nose at a sweetheart deal that would have kept him out of prison, requiring him only to perform community service and undergo counseling.

PEYSER: NOW LET'S SEE HOW RAVI TREATS HIS NEW 'ROOMIES'

In the dramatic verdict that capped three weeks of riveting testimony and three days of deliberations, Ravi was found guilty on charges that, in 2010, he illegally spied on and bullied an angry and humiliated Tyler Clementi, who jumped to his death days later from the George Washington Bridge.

Three of the raps — including bias and invasion of privacy — each carry a sentence of five to 10 years in prison. Experts have said Ravi will likely get about 10 years.

The Indian-born Ravi also could be deported after his sentencing May 21. Although he has lived in the United States since he was a boy, he is not a citizen.

As the verdict was read, Ravi lowered his head and shook it slowly back and forth. His lawyer, Steven Altman, rubbed his back.

Free on bail while his lawyers consider an appeal, he left court with his father’s arm around his shoulder.

Meanwhile, Clementi’s mother, Jane, wept in the front row in court after the first guilty count was read. Clementi’s father, Joe, later urged students to be more mature and responsible.

“You’re going to meet a lot of people in your life,” an emotional Joe Clementi said afterward. “Some of these people you may not like. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean you have to work against them.”

Although Ravi was never legally implicated in Clementi’s death, his spying on his roommate’s gay rendezvous was inexorably linked to the suicide.

Prosecutors said the verdict sent a powerful message that there is a price to be paid for bullying and intolerance. The case had attracted worldwide attention because of the technology used in the bullying tactics.

“[The jurors] felt the pain of Tyler,” said Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan. “They obviously understood what [Tyler] must have went through and what he felt.”

Juror Kashad Leverett, 20, a Middlesex County College student, said the evidence — which included Twitter posts and text messages of Ravi inviting his friends to tune in to the Web cam he trained on his roommate’s bed — was very strong.

“He was a young, immature kid, but at the same time, what he did was wrong, and the state proved its case,” Leverett told The Post after the verdict.

He said that the jury was not in conflict and that it could have reached a unanimous verdict within a few hours of getting the case but decided to take more time.

Prosecutors said Ravi remotely accessed his Web cam from a friend’s room on Sept. 19, 2010, and saw Clementi kissing a man.

After spreading the word through talk, Twitter and texts, Ravi took to the Internet to invite friends to tune in for a repeat performance two days later when Clementi asked him for the room again.

Clementi apparently got wind of the plan and pulled the plug. Two days later, he killed himself.

“You really can’t know what someone’s thinking. You actually have to get inside their head and it’s very difficult to do that,” juror Bruno Ferreira told the Newark Star-Ledger. “I think just afterwards you think about it not being done once but being done twice, another day, then that’s why we came to that conclusion.”

Scott Kochman, an Internet safety expert, said the trial and verdict will raise awareness about the power of the Internet.

“Most people have no idea that their webcam can be turned on remotely without their knowledge or permission,” said Kochman, the president of WebcamSafe, which makes software to block a webcam’s spying ability.

Michael Wildes, an immigration attorney and former federal prosecutor, said it is likely that Ravi’s immigration status will be reviewed.

“If he receives jail time, immigration authorities have a little more time to prepare,” Wildes said. “But if not, they’ll get the papers ready to serve him in May.”

Michael Wildes

Managing partner, Wildes & Weinberg P.C.;

Former Mayor of Englewood, NJ

Will Governor Cuomo Seize A Major 

Opportunity With The DREAM Act?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-wildes/will-governor-cuomo-seize_b_1393052.html

Posted: 04/ 2/2012 7:28 am

Governor Cuomo's surprising silence on the New York DREAM Act is business as usual for many elected officials, but it's disappointing coming from him. The Senate bill and its companion legislation in the Assembly would provide financial assistance to immigrant students of illegal status who meet established criteria.

The chief executive of the Empire State, who was heralded for his leadership on same-sex marriage less than a year ago, is sitting noticeably on the sidelines when it comes to immigration reform. Being that the Governor has not publicly supported the DREAM Act legislation, many wondered whether it would be included in the budget as an addition to the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) - at a relatively modest $17 million expense to the state.

But, an agreement for the budget was reached with no such provision for TAP included, leaving immigrant residents of New York with a familiar feeling: disappointment.

It is a strange departure from the apparent understanding Governor Cuomo has of investing resources to improve infrastructure throughout the state. What about an investment in the most critical infrastructure we have - people?

Surely, support from over a third of the state's Senators and Assemblypersons, as well as the full backing of Mayor Bloomberg, Senator Gillibrand, and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, provides the Governor all the political cover he needs to support the bill. Perhaps the Governor feels that getting the necessary votes from Republicans would burn too much political capital, something he is not willing to do with the Minimum Wage legislation on deck.

We remember the Marriage Equality Act was passed at the close of session last June with considerable concessions from the Governor to conservatives to get it done. I suspect that if this bill does become law, it will be done in much the same way. This is far from a guarantee. Let us also remember Harry Reid trying to insert the federal DREAM Act in at the close of session in late December 2010, only to fail in getting it passed.

The best chance for passage is for three Republican Senators representing large immigrant populations to put their support behind the bill. Namely, Lee Zeldin, Jack Martins, and Carl Marcellino - all of whom represent districts on Long Island with strong Hispanic populations. With three months left in session and the Minimum Wage and Hydrofracking among the few pieces of major legislation on the docket this year, the hope is that something can still get done in the next few months.

It is well-known that there is more in play here: a possible Presidential run in 2016. However, I see this as a reason to get something done rather than a reason not to.

With the Obama Administration deporting people in record numbers and GOP candidates routinely one-upping one another in terms of how insensitive they can be to the wishes of the Hispanic electorate, one might see this as time of great opportunity for a rising star of the Democratic Party. With his track record in just his first two years in office, he would at once be able to rally a disillusioned progressive base with his endorsement of marriage equality and a dejected Hispanic electorate clamoring for their voices to be heard.

This is an opportunity not only for Andrew Cuomo, but for the United States as a whole. Immigration is in our DNA, it is a vital stitch in the fabric of America from coast to coast. When we have the opportunity to do the right thing we have an obligation to seize it. It is our charge as citizens to make it known that this is important to us and we expect our elected officials to provide the leadership in making it happen.

"From her beacon-hand glows world-wide welcome."

May the light never go out.

Deportation is at stake in Rutgers webcam trial

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP74aa39cd49e54604b0116c4e6a8233a8.html

Associated Press

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — Jurors considering the fate of a former Rutgers University student accused of watching his roommate's intimate liaison on a webcam won't be deciding just whether he'll go to prison — they also could indirectly determine whether he's deported to his native India.

Dharun Ravi, now 20, is accused of viewing a few seconds of his roommate's encounter with another man in their dorm room and telling people about it in text messages, tweets and in person. He could face years in prison if convicted of charges including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation, a hate crime.

Lawyers gave their summations Tuesday in the case, which has gotten enormous attention since the events of September 2010, when the roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge.

Ravi could also be sent back to India, where he was born and remains a citizen, if convicted. The risk of deportation is highest if he is convicted on the most serious charges, said Michael Wildes, a New York City immigration lawyer who is not involved in the case.

Last year, prosecutors offered Ravi, who is in the U.S. legally, a plea bargain that called for no prison time — and help avoiding deportation.

"The decision was made by his legal team to roll the dice," Wildes said. "We'll see whether it was a good decision."

Immigration authorities could seek to have Ravi deported if he is convicted of any crime that lands him a prison sentence of a year or more, Wildes said.

In theory, all 15 of the charges he faces — among them are hindering apprehension, tampering with a witness and tampering with evidence — could result in prison time. But incarceration is likely only if he's convicted of one of the two second-degree bias intimidation charges he faces.

The government could also seek to deport Ravi if he's convicted of a crime it considers to involve "moral turpitude," Wildes said, whether he's imprisoned for it or not. The list of those crimes is long.

Any deportation decision would have to be made by a federal immigration judge. And, Wildes said, Ravi could argue that his deportation would harm U.S. citizens, or that he should remain in the country because he has lived here legally with his family since he was a young boy and because he has no prior criminal record.

As for the immigration help from state authorities, Wildes said such offers are usually "empty promises."

The trial — which included testimony from about 30 witnesses over 12 days, in addition to the closing arguments — focused on a few days in the Rutgers dorm where Ravi and Clementi, both 18-year-olds from well-off New Jersey suburbs, were randomly assigned to be first-year roommates.

Jurors asked for a copy of the judge's instructions to them on Wednesday afternoon, after less than an hour of deliberations. Judge Glenn Berman said he didn't have a copy to give them, but said he would answer specific questions if they had them. A bit later, they asked about one of the bias intimidation charges, wanting to know definitions of "intimidation" and "purpose."

The jury went home for the night after about four hours of deliberation and no quick verdict.

There are relatively few factual disputes in the case. The challenge for jurors could be deciding whether the laws apply to what Ravi is alleged to have done.

Ravi can be convicted of intimidation if he's also found guilty of an underlying invasion-of-privacy charge. And to convict him of bias intimidation, jurors would have to be convinced that he intended to intimidate Clementi or his guest, or that Clementi reasonably believed Ravi wanted to intimidate him because he was gay.

Clementi's death was one in a string of suicides by young gays around the country in September 2010 and became probably the best known. President Barack Obama commented on it in an online video, as did talk show host Ellen DeGeneres.