Source: https://www.jgllaw.com/blog/what-do-immigrants-need-know-when-considering-personal-injury-litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:28:31+00:00

Document:
It is reasonable to expect that a Maryland court dealing with evidence of a plaintiff’s immigration status would make a similar ruling as the Connecticut courts hearing the Guamamtario and Jimenez cases. Indeed, it is well established that undocumented immigrants have the right to access the court system in order to sue to enforce contracts and seek redress of civil wrongs, such as negligently inflicted personal injuries. In 2005, Maryland joined the growing list of states which explicitly recognized that an undocumented immigrant injured in the course of his employment was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. To be certain, workers’ compensation is, for all intents and purposes, a personal injury remedy.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
[i]ssues involving immigration can inspire passionate responses that carry a significant danger of interfering with the fact finder’s duty to engage in reasoned deliberation. In light of the low probative value of immigration status with regard to lost future earnings, the risk of unfair prejudice brought about by the admission of a plaintiff’s immigration status is too great. Consequently, we are convinced that the probative value of a plaintiff’s undocumented status, by itself, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Finally, it is not likely that a Maryland court would permit an undocumented immigrant’s immigration status to be used for impeachment purposes at trial. In order for a witness’ credibility to be impeached, Md. Rule 5-609 requires evidence of a conviction of a crime, plus such crime must be an “infamous crime” or other crime relevant to the witness’ credibility, and the court must determine that the probative value of admitting the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the witness or the objecting party. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the witness will not have been convicted of “illegal immigration.” Even if there was a conviction, it is doubtful that a Maryland court would consider a violation of immigration law to be serious enough to rise to the level of an “infamous crime.” And, as indicated above, the prejudicial effect of such evidence would far outweigh any probative value it may have at trial.
 Guamamtario v. Sound Beach Partners, LLC, 2015 WL 467234 at *5 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 6, 2015).
 Jimenez v. Brooks, 2016 WL 1443594 at *10 (Conn. Super. Ct. March 15, 2016) (ellipsis added).
 See, e.g., Montoya v. Gateway Ins. Co., 401 A.2d 1102 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979); Majlinger v. Cassino Constr. Corp., 25 A.D.3d 14 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005) (finding no intention in the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act that Congress intended to deprive undocumented immigrants of their right to sue for personal injuries in state courts or to deprive them of the right to recover damages for lost wages).
 Design Kitchen & Baths v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718, 882 A.2d 817 (2005); see also Rajeh v. Steel City Corp., 157 Ohio App.3d 722, 813 N.E.2d 697 (2004).
 Mendoza v. Monmouth Recycling Corp., 288 N.J. Super. 240, 248, 672 A.2d 221, 225 (1996).
 See United States v. Diaz, 494 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2007); United States v. Amara-Manzanares, 377 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2004); Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 230 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2010).
 Salas, 230 P.3d at 586-87.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.