California State Senate Leader: 'Half My Family' Here Illegally

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 99–646, § 43, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3601; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3502, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4921; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §§ 330011(h), 330016(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2145, 2148.)

Basically, if he had them over to dinner, he can be brought in and questioned under this provision. His admissions, clearly made against his interest, are sufficient for a warrant.

Respectfully, the black letter language is satisfied and would support a warrant. I served as a trial judge for 15 years before retiring. The admission plus a handful of additional facts that support his actual knowledge that the individuals referenced are in violation of a criminal law, will suffice to support probable cause - a far lesser standard of proof than the standard you keep referencing. There is probable cause to believe the senator is in violation of the law I referenced, based upon his assertion that his family is in violation of the initial law (referenced above). The senator has apparently drawn his own legal conclusion or perhaps he is just puffing to make a policy statement. In either case, - judge might issue a warrant. The admission places the entire matter within the discretion of a prosecutor to seek an arrest warrant and then within the discretion of a judge to issue one. No briefing is necessary and attorneys frequently forget that fact. An arrest is possible. Conviction is another matter and that would only come by convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Men have been convicted based solely on their admissions. It happens every day.

Capt Gregory Prickett - I see the approach you are taking. In your version of the facts, you anticipate that the Senator is the only one arrested and that his family is never subject to arrest. I followed the logic that his family would be questioned based on his report, and if they were, in fact, in violation of the law as the Senator claims, they would be subject to ICE detention and the Senator subsequently held. Frankly, your line of reasoning would not result in a writ. The court has jurisdiction to pursue the excessory when suspects to the underlying crime remain at large. Your interpretation would stop all criminal holds on excessory defendants. I doubt the ACLU subscribes to that theory. Certainly, my experience differs. My recollection is, I issues thousands of warrants in my career. I recall only one petition for writ of habious. I received the petition relative to multiple counts of first degree sexual assault alleged to be filed in violation of the SOL. The prosecutor had failed to properly identify the dates, giving the writ legs. The matter was set before me for further factual inquiry and ultimately dismissed. No writ issued. Perhaps your experience differs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAeI7rTjJMQ
Here's the whole video...just for shits and giggles.

that should be the honorable accclown, he is a senator after all.

You know, if I could not stand California before all I have to do is look at their elected officials and I'm like, "Seriously, WTF?"