Jean-Baptiste Bado v. US (en banc)

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-CM-1509 JEAN-BAPTISTE BADO, APPELLANT, 06/21/2018 v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (DVM-1930-11) (Hon. Jennifer M. Anderson, Motions Judge) (Hon. Stuart G. Nash, Trial Judge) (Argued En Banc June 14, 2016 Decided June 21, 2018) Alfred D. Carry, with whom Moses A. Cook, D.C. Law Students in Court, was on the brief, for appellant. Lauren R. Bates, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Channing D. Phillips, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Elizabeth Trosman, John P. Mannarino, and Michelle A. Parikh, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee. Alice Wang, with whom Samia Fam, Public Defender Service, and Arthur B. Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation‘s Capital, were on the brief, as amici curiae, in support of appellant. Kathy Doan, Heidi Altman, Claudia R. Cubas, and Rachel V. Jordan, Capital Area Immigrants‘ Rights (CAIR) Coalition, were on the brief, as amicus curiae, in support of appellant. 2 Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, GLICKMAN, FISHER, THOMPSON, BECKWITH, and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and WASHINGTON, and RUIZ, Senior Judges. Opinion for the court by Senior Judge RUIZ, with whom Chief Judge BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, and Associate Judges BECKWITH and EASTERLY, and Senior Judge WASHINGTON, join. Concurring opinion by Senior Judge WASHINGTON, at page 38. Concurring opinion by Associate Judge THOMPSON, at page 47. Dissenting opinion by Associate Judge GLICKMAN, with whom Associate Judge FISHER joins, at page 56. Dissenting opinion by Associate Judge FISHER, with whom Associate Judge GLICKMAN joins, at page 60. RUIZ, Senior Judge: Jean-Baptiste Bado appeals his conviction for misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor, after a bench trial, on the ground that he was denied the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The court, sitting en banc, is asked to decide whether the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial to an accused who faces the penalty of removal/deportation1 as a  Chief Judge Blackburne-Rigsby was an Associate Judge of the court at the time of argument. Her status changed to Chief Judge on March 18, 2017.  Senior Judge Washington was Chief Judge of the court at the time of argument. His status changed to Senior Judge on March 20, 2017. 1 ―The changes to our immigration law have also involved a change in nomenclature; the statutory text now uses the term ‗removal‘ rather than ‗deportation.‘‖ Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 364 n.6 (2010) (quoting Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348, 350 n.1 (2001)). ―A ‗removable‘ (continued . . .) 3 result of a criminal conviction for an offense that is punishable by incarceration for up to 180 days. By itself, that period of incarceration does not ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals