Black Robes Do Not Require Full Transparency: The Circular and Semantic Distinction between Direct and Collateral Consequences of a Plea
![handle is hein.journals/whitlr33 and id is 499 raw text is: BLACK ROBES DO NOT REQUIRE FULL
TRANSPARENCY:
THE CIRCULAR AND SEMANTIC DISTINCTION
BETWEEN DIRECT AND COLLATERAL
CONSEQUENCES OF A PLEA.
I. INTRODUCTION
Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes once said, [w]e
are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it
is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property
under the Constitution.I However, the safeguard of a defendant's
liberty may be in peril and the role of the judiciary as the safeguard of
that liberty is in question as a result of the ruling by the Court of
Appeals of New York in People v. Gravino.2
Imagine that you have been charged with a crime. After numerous
discussions with your attorney and multiple meetings with the
1. Charles Evan Hughes, Governor of N.Y., Address Before the Elmira, New York
Chamber of Commerce (May 3, 1907), in ADDRESSES OF CHARLES EVAN HUGHES
1906-1916, at 185 (2d ed. 1916).
2. People v. Gravino, 928 N.E.2d 1048, 1056 (N.Y. 2010). It is important to note
that People v. Gravino does not embody any new principles when it comes to the
distinction between direct and collateral consequences when dealing with
admonishment requirements. Gravino merely represents a complete rationalization of
the definitions, and rationalization of the distinction, between direct and collateral
consequences and thus serves as the appropriate vehicle to evaluate this important area
of law.
487](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/whitlr33&div=22&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most