Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jury cannot be told plaintiff undocumented (illegal alien shackled while giving birth)
UPI ^ | 8/17/11

Posted on 08/19/2011 10:04:13 PM PDT by Libloather

Jury cannot be told plaintiff undocumented
Published: Aug. 17, 2011 at 6:53 PM

NASHVILLE, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- A jury seated to determine civil damages cannot be told a woman who was shackled while she had a baby in Tennessee is an illegal immigrant, a U.S. judge says.

The judge also barred the Davidson County Sheriff's Office from using two expert witnesses, The (Nashville) Tennessean reported. The witnesses were expected to testify they believe any anguish Juana Villegas suffered during the delivery three years ago came from fear of being deported.

Villegas was near her due date when she was stopped for a traffic violation and then held because of her immigration status. U.S. District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. has already ruled her rights were violated by being forced to give birth while chained down and by not being allowed a breast pump while she was imprisoned.

"The issue of deportation and immigration is too volatile," Haynes said in his ruling Tuesday on the defense's expert witnesses.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; birth; illegal; shackled; undocumented
Shackled mother awarded $200,000 in damages


1 posted on 08/19/2011 10:04:23 PM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The question on evidence is always is it more probative than prejudicial? Does the fact (or piece of evidence) tend to illuminate more than inflame?

This would be highly prejudicial, and if I understand the case from this terse report - her immigration status has nothing to do with whether or not the treatment she received violated her rights as a detainee - the core issue.


2 posted on 08/19/2011 10:12:11 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


3 posted on 08/19/2011 10:12:25 PM PDT by HiJinx ("The wealthy and satisfied do not migrate, they stagnate." ~ Louis L'Amour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
So will she be paid in Pesos and escorted to the border? And if not, why?

The article also says she was later unshackled and gave birth normally, so what's the big deal?

Of course that kid is now a US citizen.

Next time anyone goes into labor, get yourself arrested and later sue. Nice college fund or down payment on a house right there.

4 posted on 08/19/2011 10:20:40 PM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
If you come here as a illegal you must consider that being “deported” is a big part of your problem!
If you come to this country with NO regard to our laws~
PLEASE DO NOT SUE for what you consider bad treatment!
When in the hell are “illegals” going to be held as the criminals that they are! I do not break laws!!! Why am I as a citizen treated different!
5 posted on 08/19/2011 10:24:09 PM PDT by Isabel2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
If you come here as a illegal you must consider that being “deported” is a big part of your problem!
If you come to this country with NO regard to our laws~
PLEASE DO NOT SUE for what you consider bad treatment!
When in the hell are “illegals” going to be held as the criminals that they are! I do not break laws!!! Why am I as a citizen treated different!
6 posted on 08/19/2011 10:24:09 PM PDT by Isabel2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I would have never known I had a "right" to a breast pump in prison.

I wonder if she has the same "rights" in whatever craphole country she wandered out of?

7 posted on 08/19/2011 10:33:37 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

What a pathetic country we are becoming. Bill her for costs incurred, and call it a wash.


8 posted on 08/19/2011 10:40:40 PM PDT by andyk (Income != Wealth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacMattico
The article also says she was later unshackled and gave birth normally, so what's the big deal?

This treatment is not reserved for illegals. Later unshackling is not guaranteed, and the UPI article doesn't provide details. The problem in this case is not with a single illegal but with a bunch of LEOs torturing people.

Once the police arrests someone and deprives the arrestee of the freedom to take care of himself the police must assume those duties within reasonable limits. For example, they shouldn't be able to arrest you, put in a cell, and forget about you for a month (no food, no water.) In this particular case the police also failed to take care of the baby - who, as far as I can tell, hadn't been accused of any wrongdoing, before or after his birth.

Many rulers in the past (and present) like to expand their power by using their soldiers against thieves and robbers. This makes people think that the soldiers are working for them, and the harsh punishment meted out to thieves is just and proper. Soon, however, the people learn that soldiers are not on their side, and they can hang villagers just as easily as robbers. I would be very careful to not laud the marginally humane treatment of illegals because if we do then the same treatment will be soon provided to all US citizens.

9 posted on 08/19/2011 10:42:47 PM PDT by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

By all practical means, we should have open borders by now.
We’ve had 4 administrations “about 23 years” that were or are
pro open borders, one world government. They have not only
ignored the problem but actually made it worse. Now criminal
aliens are allowed to sue citizens, industry and government in
process of their illegal activity. 23 soon to be 24 years of
Idiocracy


10 posted on 08/19/2011 10:51:04 PM PDT by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greysard

Good post


11 posted on 08/19/2011 10:56:53 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Greysard
I guess you know more about the case than I, I read the linked story and there was no mention of poor treatment of the baby or any of that, unless I missed it.

I'm just not at the point that you are where it seems you think the government (well maybe Obama) and therefore it's soldiers — police officers and, what, the armed forces (?) are out to get us. Many of these people are my friends or neighbors and are just as anti-big government control as I, and they don't purposely harm pregnant women just because they are illegal. They don't follow illogical and harmful orders without question and are not socialist pawns. Yes, there are always some bad apples that get all the attention but that's a small percentage.

12 posted on 08/19/2011 11:04:13 PM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Greysard
LOL, wow.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence.

13 posted on 08/19/2011 11:08:16 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Greysard

Good post


14 posted on 08/19/2011 11:08:34 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; Greysard; Wally_Kalbacken; All

yes, you’re right, it was a good post.

and if police mistreated a CRIMINAL,
then let THEM pay.

why should INNOCENT American taxpayers,
have to pay?

let her sue the police, and then,
let the AMERICAN PEOPLE SUE HER !!!

our CHILDREN are in debt 14 trillion - $92,000 each !!!
...the picture worth 10,000 words here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2759341/posts?page=2#2

illegals cost just TX and CA, 17 and 21 BILLION,
EACH YEAR !!!

illegals are STEALING our money.
i have a right to MY money not going to illegals in benefits.
my CHILD is being put in DEBT, to give money to ILLEGALS!

our U.S. Government, is BORROWING MONEY,
and giving it to ILLEGALS!

are OUR rights, LESS than that of people
who deliberately CHOSE to INVADE our country ?!?


15 posted on 08/19/2011 11:08:34 PM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Hmmm. This kind of ruling never seems to be applied to the innocent; only the guilty.


16 posted on 08/19/2011 11:09:12 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

The baby is a US citizen, just like me and I assume you and thus has all the rights of a US citizen.

Mom, while not a US citizen, is protected by the Constitution as she is a person and our Constitution extends rights to the people, not just citizens.


17 posted on 08/19/2011 11:28:48 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
A jury seated to determine civil damages cannot be told a woman who was shackled while she had a baby in Tennessee is an illegal immigrant, a U.S. judge says.

The judge also barred the Davidson County Sheriff's Office from using two expert witnesses...


Why doesn't this jackhole judge just go ahead and tell the jurors which verdict to render? Why waste thousands if not millions on a trial if the jury is going to be kept so ignorant of basic facts that they can't possibly make an informed decision?
18 posted on 08/19/2011 11:35:17 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
Unfortunately, this statement about the "question on evidence" is simply incorrect. Too often, even lawyers and law students who are in, or who have passed their evidence course, get this wrong.

Following are the two primary rules regarding relevance in the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Rule 401: "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Rule 403: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Under Rule 401, if there is a fact in issue which is of consequence to the action, and evidence is offered which has any tendency, no matter how slight to make the determination of that fact more probable or less probable, then it is relevant. Here, the source of her anxiety leading to her emotional distress (assuming this is an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim) is crucial to determining how much she should be awarded. Evidence of her status as an illegal alien, as well as the contribution of her fear of deportation to her emotional distress, therefore would be relevant evidence on that point, and the judge could instruct the jury to limit their consideration of that evidence to that point.

Rule 403 provides an additional limitation on the admissibility of relevant evidence. That rule keeps out otherwise relevant evidence if that evidence fails the balancing test that the judge must perform. For the rule to operate, the probative value of the evidence must be substantially outweighed by one of the dangers or considerations enumerated in the rule. We can discard the considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence here because there is no information of other evidence probative of the point in issue being introduced, or that the evidence is being presented as a delaying tactic. The questions of misleading the jury, confusing the issues, and unfair prejudice need to be addressed.

I will limit the analysis to the danger of unfair prejudice for the purpose of brevity, though a more thorough analysis would address the other two dangers as well. Unfair prejudice is not simply prejudice. *All* evidence is prejudicial to the other side -- that is why the opposing side proffers the evidence. Unfair prejudice is a specific term of art in evidence law. The highly-influential committee notes on Rule 403 state that unfair prejudice is "an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." In other words, evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it would tend to suggest to the jury that they should decide the case on an improper basis. Improper bases include, but are not limited to, emotional inflammation of the jury as well as the infamous he's a bad person, therefore he must have committed the crime, or he committed crime X therefore he must also be guilty of crime Y.

Here, the defense has a good argument that the evidence would tend to inflame the jury and entice them to decide against the woman simply because she is an illegal alien. Here is where the judge must balance the evidence versus the unfair prejudice. If the evidence that her illegal alien status and fear of deportation contributed to her emotional distress is weak, then the judge would probably be justified in excluding the evidence under Rule 403. However, if the evidence is strong (i.e., she made a statement to that effect, or other circumstances make it clear that some of her distress stemmed from her fear of deportation) then the judge would probably abuse his or her discretion in excluding the evidence. Without more, I cannot make a better analysis.

However, the point of my reply is that the question on evidence is not "always [if it is] . . . more probative than prejudicial[.]" It is whether, among other factors, the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Moreover, because the danger of unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence, Rule 403 is a rule favoring admissibility not exclusion.

This is a complicated analysis. How prejudicial evidence is does not enter into the equation. Because it is possible for her immigration status and fear of deportation to have had a bearing on the amount of distress she experienced, the evidence could certainly be relevant and if the evidence is not too weak would most likely make it through Rule 403.

19 posted on 08/20/2011 12:12:16 AM PDT by Channeling Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Throw her and the Anchor back n the river.


20 posted on 08/20/2011 12:39:20 AM PDT by BigCinBigD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Never, ever pass up a chance to support an illegal from south of the border.


21 posted on 08/20/2011 3:28:18 AM PDT by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Oh I s’pose the next flash of brilliance from the ACLU led courts will be that Jury’s will not be allowed to consider any
plaintiff as being charged with any crimes.After all there is no difference between the criminal and the attorney representing them.Only the Country and the christian can be blamed.


22 posted on 08/20/2011 3:57:49 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Sounds like SOP for most hospitals towards birthing mothers.


23 posted on 08/20/2011 4:57:32 AM PDT by Roos_Girl (The world is full of educated derelicts. - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The failure of the Federal Government to protect the US borders from foreign invasion and its inability to oversee immigration is creating a new generation of xenophobes.

The hatred being spewed on a Christian site (FR) is disturbing. We should hate the crime/sin and love the sinner(s) - but our government is purposefully making it impossible.


24 posted on 08/20/2011 4:58:52 AM PDT by sodpoodle (Despair: Man's surrender. Laughter: God's redemption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Judge Haynes is an African-American named by Bill Clinton in 1999. Before becoming a judge he spent all of his time in the public sector. It figures.


25 posted on 08/20/2011 6:49:51 AM PDT by Melchior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

In Mexico they don’t shackle and deport illegal aliens from South America. They just kill them and leave them in the desert.


26 posted on 08/20/2011 6:53:20 AM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Looks like she won the lottery. We’re finished.


27 posted on 08/20/2011 8:13:44 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

And there in lies the problem. Children born to foreign diplomats aren’t citizens. “Birthright citizenship’’ is a mis-interpretation of the 14th. Amendment and needs to be changed. You’re on the hook for this pay-out, to this woman, we all are.


28 posted on 08/20/2011 8:17:39 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Greysard

“I would be very careful to not laud the marginally humane treatment of illegals because if we do then the same treatment will be soon provided to all US citizens.”

Two generations too late - the poison fruit of liberalism as spread throughout the populace thanks to commie unions in the schools and elsewhere, and the results of that commie education becoming AgencyPersons.


29 posted on 08/20/2011 8:20:10 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

“And there in lies the problem. Children born to foreign diplomats aren’t citizens. “Birthright citizenship’’ is a mis-interpretation of the 14th. Amendment and needs to be changed.”

And there was no indication that the woman in this article was a foreign diplomat and thus her child is a US citizen and no court is going to interpret, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” in a manner which would deny citizenship to those who were born here.


30 posted on 08/20/2011 11:49:43 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

“Never, ever pass up a chance to support an illegal from south of the border.”

I do not support illegal aliens from south of the border of from any other country. However, I do understand that the child in the story is a US citizen and that his mother does have certain constitutional rights while in the US.


31 posted on 08/20/2011 11:53:39 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

I didn’t say she was a foreign diplomat. I was saying the children born to them here aren’t automatically citizens and the whole birthright citizenship is a mis-interpretation of the 14th. Amendment. That woman is ‘’subject to the jurisdiction thereof..’’, that being Mexico.


32 posted on 08/20/2011 12:44:58 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

Her immigration status had everything to do with it, and why are we bending over to aid illegals stealing from this country?

And what kind of sleazy lawyer would take this case? He should be deported along with this thief!!


33 posted on 08/20/2011 8:59:19 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson