A Court System That Only Prosecutes Brown People: 'Streamline' Mass Court Proceedings in U.S. Federal Court in San Diego

She has lived in the United States for fifteen-years. All three of her children were born here, and most of her family live here lawfully. She is a defendant.

He applied for a Humanitarian Visa because his three small nephews were murdered by his sister’s partner. After his visa was denied, he crossed the U.S. border to attend the funeral. He is a defendant.

He spent three days walking in the hills to cross the U.S. border. When he spotted a home, he asked for help because he was suffering from dehydration. As he sat on the porch with a glass of water, the residents of the home called border patrol. He is a defendant.

He came to the United States when he was fifteen years old. He attended some high school in the U.S., and spent the majority of his life here. He is a defendant.

These are just four of the hundreds of people that are prosecuted in Streamline Court. Not batches. Not numbers. People. 

 . . . . . . . 

On August 27, 2018, I observed the Streamline Court as part of my Immigration Law class, where we were provided with opportunities to see immigration law in action. The process of attending Streamline in San Diego was uncomfortable. It was difficult being a passive witness to an unconstitutional and, ultimately, dehumanizing process. A witness to a court system that violates equal protection. A witness to a separate court system that only prosecutes brown people.

Ever since the implementation of the Zero Tolerance Policy in San Diego in July 2018, every individual who enters the country without authorization is put into group criminal proceedings for the crime of unlawful entry, a misdemeanor (U.S. Code Title 8, Section 1325). This Streamline Court system was introduced to prosecute tens of individuals at once, in order to handle the drastic spike of criminal trials that the Zero Tolerance Policy created. Prior to this,  prosecutors had discretion to not criminally prosecute and could instead handle illegal entry as a civil violation of the immigration law. Under Zero Tolerance, that option disappeared. Every individual who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without authorization is now charged with a criminal violation and taken into Streamline Court, regardless of whether they were entering the U.S. for their first time, attempting to come back into the country, or trying to seek asylum.  

The defendants I observed in Streamline had just spent the last few days in a small overcrowded cell. The cell was so full that there was no space to lay the aluminum mat provided to them on the floor. In the last few days, all each defendant had been given to eat was a bag of Doritos, cookies, and some tuna. The lights were kept on in the cell twenty-four hours a day. The cell has no windows. There is a single toilet with a sink beside it, but no cups to drink water. The defendants have not taken a shower. They have not brushed their teeth. None of the defendants have slept. None of the defendants have had a proper meal.

Court begins. Each defendant walks into the courtroom in shackles, wearing a brown jumpsuit. A pregnant female defendant is in shackles; a male defendant who appears to be four feet tall and a hundred pounds is in shackles. There is no case-by-case assessment for the use of shackles. 

The judge proceeds: “are you taking any medication or have any health concerns that would prevent you from understanding anything today?” One by one as their name is called each defendant responds with a “No.” The judge continues: “have you had sufficient time to have your questions answered by the United States government;” “do you understand fully the agreement you have with the United States government;” “are you satisfied with the advice you received from your attorney.” One by one, each defendant as they are called, reply with a “Yes.” 

In the regular course of a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor negotiates plea deals with defense counsel. In Streamline Court, the judge plays the role of the prosecutor, informing the defendants that he will accept their guilty pleas only if they waive their right to a bail hearing.

The judge continues: “by pleading guilty you are giving up important constitutional rights. You are giving up the right to a trial, giving up the right to subpoena witnesses . . . Do you understand this and still wish to plead guilty?” One by one, the judge calls out the defendant’s name:

Mrs. García? Yes, she replies.

Mr. Fernández? Yes, he replies.

Mr. González? Yes, he replies. 

Mr. Rodríguez? . . . [a pause]

Mr. Rodríguez then explains to the interpreter in Spanish that he does not fully understand because Spanish is not his native language, he only speaks Spanish forty percent of the time. His native language is the Indigenous Mayan language Kanjobal. 

The judge asks the counsel in the courtroom if it is possible to find a Kanjobal interpreter. Counsel respond in the affirmative. The judge then informs Mr. Rodríguez that his case will be transferred to Thursday morning. Mr. Rodríguez is still kept in the courtroom—he listens as each defendant, one-by-one, pleads guilty. I observe how by not being removed from the courtroom, Mr. Rodríguez will most likely be influenced to plead guilty Thursday morning. 

The judge now turns to the attorneys in the courtroom: “Counsel, do you believe that your client is voluntarily pleading guilty?” Yes, they say in unison.  

By doing this the judge ‘washes his hands clean.’ He has outsourced the determination of the voluntariness of these pleas to the attorneys in the courtroom. 

Not a single defendant has properly slept. Not a single defendant has been properly fed. There is no proper medical screening. Yet, the judge still accepts the guilty pleas. 

Lawyering in the Streamline program presents challenges to the attorneys as the attorney-client relationship is threatened. In a single day, a panel attorney can represent up to four defendants. Before court begins, the attorney has a maximum of three hours to meet with all four clients to prepare their cases. They meet with their clients all at once in a parking garage with no privacy. In the span of three hours, the attorney has to establish trust with their clients, explain the court system and the criminal process, explain to them their charges, and find out about their lives and if there are grounds for an asylum or other claim for relief from deportation. The attorney also has to explain the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Because these are criminal proceedings, rather than immigration proceedings, the attorneys in Streamline Court are criminal defense attorneys, with limited or no knowledge of immigration law. All the attorneys that I observed in the courtroom struggled to establish trust with their clients. There is a power imbalance between the white male attorney and his brown clients. As one attorney said on the record: “I do not believe my client trusts me.” The Streamline proceedings do not provide sufficient time and resources for a genuine attorney-client relationship across the lines of power, race, and citizenship. 

The judge then pronounces on their sentence. Together, the shackled defendants walk out of the courtroom and are transferred to immigration custody. Many of those walking out of the courtroom with a criminal conviction came to the United States to seek asylum, yet found themselves being thrown into the criminal justice system. 

DISCLAIMER: To safeguard the privacy of individuals, all identities, names, and distinct personal details have been altered. However, the narratives and the situations described are authentic and reflect real occurrences.