There’s a lot to love about being a licensed attorney in the Commonwealth. I’m proud to be  serving the oldest functioning written constitution in the world (the only state constitution to specifically mention “the duty of legislatures and magistrates… to cherish the interests of literature“!) , and to have taken an Attorney’s Oath which has remained unchanged since 1686. The Boston Massacre took place right outside one of my favorite T stations, where fellow Mass Bar member John Adams secured acquittals for six of the eight British soldiers involved only yards away.

But, like the man said, the past isn’t dead… it isn’t even past. For as much as there is to love about having a constitution and an attorney’s oath that are at least twice as old as most American states, it also means that we sometimes have to live with statutes that are just as old–or older.

Our legislature’s woeful failure to update some of our creakiest and most ancient statutes seems to be driven by the same philosophy that has kept the cult of King James going in certain Christian circles: If it was good enough in 1620, it’s good enough for 2008.

Take G.L.c. 272 Sec. 53 (…please!). Although it’s usually referenced as the “disorderly conduct” statute, it is actually a tasty smorgasbord of old-timey criminality. Namely:

Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure…

There’s a lot to say about this damnably stupid law, starting with this: It needs to die. Just ask our own Supreme Judicial Court:

We note at the outset that G.L.c. 272 Sec. 53 has been saved, although sometimes just barely, by several limiting constructions and we have repeatedly commented that the statute is archaic and in need of legislative scrutiny.

Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229 (2001), FN2.

Which is to say: Boys,  load up yer shotguns, drag this thing out back, and kindly shoot it in the HEAD. Read more…

Criminal Appeals, disorderly conduct, massachusetts, stupid laws appeals, criminal law, disorderly conduct, massachusetts, stupid laws

As much as I love this paragraph as it is, it’s even more fun if you read it out in the stentorian brogue of Dr. Henry Jones:

“It is not the business of the courts to tell Congress what to do about public policy choices, but we are entitled to warn when the machinery that we help administer is breaking down.   The current structure of deportation law, greatly complicated by rapid amendments and loop-hole plugging, is now something closer to a many-layered archeological dig than a rational construct.   The regime is badly in need of an overhaul.”

Kim v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 58 (1st. Cir. 2006)(emphasis added).

The First Circuit’s evident disenchantment with immigration appeals (may I offer you the paltry near-beer of a fresh half-pint of Justice Lite?) is understandable, especially given the explosion of BIA appeals they’ve had to endure since the passage of the 2002 reforms ostensibly designed to “streamline” the immigration appellate process. (I’m not up for putting together recent numbers tonight, but try here for a comprehensive look at the growing phenomenon as it stood a couple of years ago.) So this we-can’t-tell-you-to-do-something-about-this-but-please-seriously-guys-just-DO-SOMETHING kinda sentiment had to come out sometime.

To be fair, there’s no doubt what it was about this argument that had the First reaching for their revolvers:

“Kim’s first claim–that no crime of violence occurred even though Kim approached the victim with a cocked gun and shot him in the head as the victim fled–might seem frivolous to one not acquainted with immigration law…” (emphasis added)

Couldn’t have snarked it better myself. That last phrase tells you pretty much everything you need to know about what the First Circuit thinks about the current state of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the immigration bar at large.

But, more importantly, you read that argument correctly: The petitioner claimed that manslaughter should not constitute a “crime of violence” that should be classified as an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes.

Again: Shooting a man in the back of the head did not constitute a felony in which there was a “substantial risk that physical force may be used… in the course of its commission.”

One more once? Intentional gun violence does not equal a “crime of violence.” Try saying it out loud out a few more times. Pace around the room a little, if that helps. I’ll be here.

Thing is, I have no doubt that counsel stood up and argued this with a straight face and a clean conscience. As the First has to acknowledge, it’s a good argument.

If you think this is all some kind of stupid joke, let me assure you that it is not—and to be the first to welcome you to Immigrationland! Double Scotch?

Of course, we can all agree right here that it’s a crazy argument, or at least that it sounds like one.

See, now, if you came up to me on the street and asked “Hey, would you say that manslaughter is a crime of violence?” my reasoned response would likely be a grunted affirmative just before I politely requested that you step away from my car with that squeegee–because, really, sorry man, but I’m really just all out of change–and rolled up the window and locked all my doors.

Yes, it sounds crazy that anyone would even try to litigate this issue. Squeegee crazy. But the truly insane takeaway is that this is a perfectly acceptable argument that actually passes the laugh test–thanks to some eminently-fixable vagaries of  both the relevant Rhode Island statute and the controlling federal law which defines “crimes of violence”–and that it may very well work next time around if it is properly raised earlier in the proceedings.

(Full disclosure: I recently asked the First Circuit if they might maybe like to consider an appeal which raised a similar question which kind of sounds about 75% as ridiculous as this one when you say it out loud, but I still stand by my argument in that one and will be happy to discuss its merits further with anyone who really wants to know. Plus, it’s not like we were talking about, y’know, manslaughter.)

1st Circuit, Immigration Appeals 1st Circuit, appeals, immigration