Natty Shafer Law

Utah lawyer for criminal and immigration cases

Monthly Archives: April 2013


by Leave a comment

Citizenship Naturalization Process

Applicants who have determined that they are eligible for naturalization are likely to be curious about the process of naturalization and what to expect. (Other people may be curious, too.)

First, applicants (or their attorneys) fill out the N-400. Every question should be answered, and it should be written in CAPS. What supporting documentation to submit depends on the applicant’s history and basis for filing the N-400, but each application requires a photocopy of the front and back of their Permanent Resident Card, 2 passport style photos, and a check for the filling fees.

After USCIS receives the application, they will send a notice for a “biometric” appointment. Basically, they will take the applicants’ fingerprints and possibly their pictures so that they can conduct background checks. Assuming that applicants have no criminal history, no ties to terrorist or communist organizations, and no other red flags, then they should pass the background check. It is possible to select another appointment date, but if at all possible, applicants should go to their appointment on the assigned date.

USCIS will send a notice for another appointment, this time for the naturalization interview. Some applicants may qualify for a waiver, but most applicants will need to be ready to take a civics test and to speak to the interviewer in English. The whole interview will be done in English, and one of the interviewer’s goals will be to test the applicant’s ability to communicate in English. The interviewer will ask up to 10 questions on civics and the U.S. government; once the applicant has correctly answered 6 questions, the questions stop. The applicant will also need to read one sentence in English and write one sentence in English. An applicant will get up to 3 chances to read and write a sentence correctly.

An applicant who passes the naturalization interview and the background check is likely to be recommended for citizenship. Applicants will get a final notice for their swearing in ceremony. Usually, many applicants are sworn-in at once. Either a United States judge or a USCIS officer will swear in the applicants, and the applicants must swear allegiance to the United States. After that, applicants are officially U.S. citizens. They can vote, serve on juries, obtain a U.S. passport, and generally have the same rights as citizens born in the United States.


by 1 Comment

Citizenship Naturalization Requirements

The process of naturalization grants foreign born citizens or nationals U.S. citizenship, provided they meet the requirements Congress established. Previously, I have written about getting citizenship through military service. This information is for civilians wishing to become naturalized citizens.

The most common way for a person to become a citizen is by being a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 5 years and is at least 18 years old. After 5 years, a potential applicant may fill out “Form N-400” to start the process. During the past 5 years, the applicant must have spent at least 30 months (2.5 years) of that time inside the United States. Also, the applicant may not have had any foreign trips that lasted longer than 6 months. (These rules exist under the rationale that applicants who spends more than half their time outside the country may not have strong enough ties or allegiance to the United States.)

Another way a person can apply is if they are at least 18 years old, have been a lawful permanent resident for 3 years, and have been married to and living with a U.S. citizen for 3 years. The U.S. citizen spouse must have been a citizen for all of that 3 year period. Such applicants also fill out Form N-400.

This next way is relatively rare but is worth mentioning. A small group of people are classified as “U.S. nationals” and yet were not born U.S. citizens. People born in some U.S. territories, such as American Samoa, belong in this category. U.S. nationals who have lived in a state long enough to be legal residents can request naturalization through Form N-400; it is not required that they be a permanent resident first.

For some people it may be possible to have USCIS declare that they automatically became a citizen after they were born. This requires filling out Form N-600 “Certificate of Citizenship.” Often, the N-600 is naturalization as well, since such applicants are born as citizens of a different country but become citizens after birth. The N-600 deserves its own post, however.


by Leave a comment

Public Defenders in Utah

The Salt Lake Tribune had an opinion piece earlier this week that highlighted the need and problems with the public defender system in Utah. According to the article, 48 states fund and supervise the process for ensuring representation for the indigent. Utah is one of the two states that do not. Each county devises its own system for people who cannot afford their own lawyer. Many counties spend as little as possible on public defenders, meanwhile providing ample resources to their prosecution departments.

In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court held that state courts are required to provide counsel in criminal trials for people who cannot afford a lawyer. Earlier this year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of Gideon, but still Utah does not have a statewide system for defending the indigent.

It really is important that everyone be given a proper attorney and trial. It would be hard to overstate how important it is to have a competent attorney who has the time to dedicate to an individual case. Everyone in Utah should let their representatives know that they do not approve of the current situation.


by 5 Comments

Prosecutors with Weak Cases

One the frustrating things about being a defense attorney is the presumption that prosecutors only bring cases when they are sure the defendant is guilty. Unfortunately, prosecutors just do not spend a lot of time pondering whether each individual defendant is guilty. Now an interesting study from earlier this year found that one of the predictive factors in having a case later overturned was the prosecutor having had a weak case. The study compared the overturned convictions with what they called “near misses,” or cases where an innocent defendant was indicted but released before a conviction. (To determine that the near misses were actually innocent, the study examined the evidence to see if the person was actually innocent.) Overall in the near misses, the prosecutors actually had stronger cases. This is counterintuitive as we usually expect weaker cases to be dismissed sooner and stronger cases to have a higher chance of conviction.

To explain this phenomenon, some explanations are more charitable than others. Among the more generous interpretations are that prosecutors, realizing the weakness of their case, prepare for trial better, or that this is merely a failing of the human mind. Prosecutors who indict in spite of a weak case must first convince themselves of the correctness of their position. That internal conviction “translates” well with jury, and the jury convicts because of the confidence of the prosecutor. A less generous interpretation is that prosecutors with weak cases take active measures to illegally withhold evidence from the defendant. They become so committed to proving the defendant’s guilt that evidence potentially exonerating the defendant is discounted. In some of the cases the study examined, the prosecutor failed to turn over exculpatory evidence.

Other possible explanations the study highlighted are that prosecutors might behave differently when they have a weak case. While the police and the prosecutor are still investigating, they often realize they need to shore up weak aspects of their case. In some of the overturned convictions, the prosecutor used a lineup based on a merely passing resemblance to the victim’s description of the perpetrator; some victims feel compelled to select someone out of a lineup, but once a victim chooses someone they are unwilling or unable to tackle the idea they may have made a misidentification. In some cases, the prosecutor used a snitch to provide corroborating testimony. (The word “snitch” has a specific use in terms of testimony. It refers to someone who is not an eyewitness, but that supposedly gets an accused person to confess or corroborate all or part of the case against them. For myriad reasons, such testimony is extremely unreliable. Often, a snitch will receive compensation in the form of a reduced sentence or better living conditions in exchange for testimony. Unfortunately, juries often give snitches too much credence.) These actions have the effect of confirming a prosecutor’s incorrect hunch about a case, and people love when their hunches are confirmed.

This is just one of the many reasons that defense attorneys frequently remind juries to hear all the evidence and evaluate it on its own terms. Prosecutors frequently are wrong, and, as this study suggests, sometimes more likely to obtain a conviction when a case is weaker. That is why juries must actually listen to the evidence presented and uphold their duty to find a defendant guilty only when they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.