Abstract
The federal criminal legal system is a deportation pipeline. Almost all noncitizen defendants waive their constitutional right to a trial and instead enter guilty pleas that have grave immigration consequences. Despite the constitutional guarantee of due process for all criminal defendants regardless of immigration status, many noncitizen defendants enter guilty pleas that are not both knowing and voluntary. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(O) requires that courts, prior to accepting a guilty plea, provide a general warning that immigration consequences may result from a criminal conviction. Adopted in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, the Rule was thought to be “good policy” in light of the decision. This Article, the first to review the decade’s worth of decisions interpreting and applying the Rule since its adoption, argues Rule 11(b)(1)(O) has proven instead to be bad policy that undermines the rights of noncitizen defendants. This Article argues it is critical for courts to recognize that noncitizen defendants’ understanding of immigration consequences is a fundamental due process issue, not a merely helpful procedural requirement. Rule 11(b)(1)(O) must be amended to better protect the rights of noncitizen defendants and to ensure fair and just outcomes of federal criminal proceedings.
Recommended Citation
Allison McCarthy,
Rule 11’s Unfulfilled Promise to Protect Noncitizen Defendants,
90 Mo. L. Rev.
(2026)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol90/iss4/8