Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cr-00336/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cr-00336-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Asencion Alcantar-Mendivil
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Asencion Alcantar-Mendivil, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 10-00336-TUC-FRZ (JCG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending before the Court is a Second Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant. (Doc.

33.) Defendant seeks dismissal of the Indictment, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment right to

due process and the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process, on the grounds that the

government deported a witness who had material and favorable testimony to the defense.

The government filed responses to the Motion. (Docs. 35, 46.) This matter came before

the Court for a hearing and a report and recommendation as a result of a referral made on

January 20, 2010, pursuant to LRCrim 5.1. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2010, Defendant Asencion Alcantar-Mendivil was indicted for

possession with intent to distribute 48.4 kilograms of marijuana in violation of Title 21,

United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(D). According to the complaint,

Case 4:10-cr-00336-FRZ-JR Document 58 Filed 02/07/11 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

This motion was originally set for evidentiary hearing on January 20, 2011. The hearing was

continued to enable Defendant time to subpoena witnesses to meet his burden of proof. (Doc. 45.)

- 2 -

Border Patrol agents using night vision equipment observed four individuals, three of whom

were carrying bundles on their backs, loading bundles into the trunk of a vehicle. One of the

individuals entered the passenger side of the vehicle. The other three ran into the brush.

After agents stopped the vehicle, Defendant, the driver, consented to a search of the trunk

and agents found five bundles of marijuana. Defendant and the passenger of the vehicle were

arrested. The passenger, who apparently was a juvenile, was not charged and was later

deported. He was not interviewed - either after his arrest or prior to his deportation.

Defendant moved to dismiss the charges against Defendant with prejudice because

the juvenile passenger was deported. Defendant’s Motion was heard on February 4, 2011.1

Defendant was present and represented by counsel. 

Just prior to the hearing, on January 31, 2011, Defendant caused a subpoena to be

served on Assistant United States Attorney Gordon Davenport; the subpoena commanded

Davenport's appearance to testify at the February 4, 2011, hearing. The government moved

to quash the subpoena (Doc. 54), indicating that Davenport would not be able to provide

testimony regarding the deportation of the witness. The Magistrate granted the Motion to

Quash. (Doc. 55.) 

At the hearing on February 4, 2011, Defendant requested that the Magistrate Judge

reconsider her order quashing the subpoena. Defendant argued that Davenport's testimony

was necessary to show: (1) the government did not act according to its policies of prosecution

and deportation; and (2) whether there is a policy regarding the taking of statements from codefendants. According to the Defendant, Davenport's declination of prosecution amounted

to a decision to deport. The Magistrate denied the request for reconsideration. The

Defendant had no further witnesses in support of his Motion to Dismiss. 

Case 4:10-cr-00336-FRZ-JR Document 58 Filed 02/07/11 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Defendant’s assertion that the prosecution is required to make a determination as to whether

the witness possesses any information favorable to the defense prior to deportation is incorrect. See

United States v. Dring, 930 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting claim that the Government may deport

aliens if and only if it first questions them, or otherwise makes a good faith determination that they

are not material and favorable eyewitnesses). 

- 3 -

Because the Defendant failed to meet his burden of proof, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court, after its independent review, deny Defendant’s Second

Motion to Dismiss.

ANALYSIS

The right to retain a deportable alien witness is based upon the Fifth Amendment

guarantee of due process and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of compulsory process for

obtaining witnesses in one’s favor. See United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 517 (9th

Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court has narrowly construed the right, setting forth a two-pronged

test for determining whether the government unconstitutionally deported witnesses. See

United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 873 (1982). Defendant must make an

initial showing that (1) the Government acted in bad faith and (2) this conduct resulted in

prejudice to the defendant's case. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d at 517. To establish that the

government acted in bad faith, Defendant must show either that the Government departed

from normal deportation procedures or that the Government deported the witness to gain an

unfair tactical advantage over him at trial.2

 See id. To demonstrate prejudice, the defendant

must “make a plausible showing that the testimony of the deported witnesses would have

been material and favorable to his defense, in ways not merely cumulative to the testimony

of available witnesses.” Id. The Supreme Court recognized the difficulty for “a defendant

who has not had an opportunity to interview a witness ... in making a showing of

materiality,” and suggested the defendant may draw on “the events to which a witness might

testify, and the relevance of those events to the crime charged.” Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S.

at 871. 

Defendant failed to make an initial showing that (1) the government acted in bad faith

and (2) this conduct resulted in prejudice to the Defendant's case. There was no evidence to

Case 4:10-cr-00336-FRZ-JR Document 58 Filed 02/07/11 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

establish that the government departed from normal deportation procedures. No witnesses

were called. Although Defendant intended to establish bad faith through AUSA Davenport's

testimony, the AUSA would not have been able to testify as to deportation procedures or the

circumstances of the deportation decision made in this case. Davenport was not involved in

the decision to deport the juvenile. At the hearing, Defense counsel acknowledged this and

indicated that the testimony being sought from Davenport related to prosecution policies.

While the decision to decline prosecution may lead immigration officials to initiate

deportation proceedings, decisions regarding immigration are not tied solely to prosecution;

the responsibility for making decisions regarding immigration is charged to immigration

officials, not to prosecutors. 

There was also no evidence that the juvenile was deported to gain unfair tactical

advantage. The juvenile was not interviewed and there is no evidence that he made any

statements - favorable or unfavorable - or that any statements were alleged to be

communicated to the AUSA. 

Defendant also failed to demonstrate prejudice. There was no evidence that the

testimony of the deported juvenile would have been material and favorable to the defense,

in a way not merely cumulative to the testimony of Defendant. Defendant contends that the

juvenile passenger could have testified that the vehicle Defendant was driving was not the

vehicle that the passenger had been waiting for, and that Defendant fought and argued with

the juvenile as he forced his way into the vehicle. According to Defendant, such testimony

would corroborate Defendant’s claim that the passenger did not match the description of the

undocumented alien Defendant intended to pick up and that Defendant and did not know that

marijuana had been loaded into his vehicle until after he was arrested. 

Defendant's suggested scenario is improbable and ignores the juvenile's role in the

marijuana smuggling. The juvenile was part of the group of backpackers who carried

marijuana into the United States. The group placed the marijuana in the open trunk of

Defendant's car when it pulled over and stopped on the dark, deserted road where they were

waiting. Contrary to Defendant's assertion, the group must have believed that the

Case 4:10-cr-00336-FRZ-JR Document 58 Filed 02/07/11 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Defendant's vehicle was in fact the car that they were to load with the marijuana. And even

if the juvenile testified that the Defendant did try to push him out of the car, it would not

establish Defendant's reason for doing so. Defendant may have been pushing the juvenile

out of the car because Defendant believed he was to pick up only the marijuana. Moreover,

to the extent, the juvenile could testify that the Defendant said the juvenile was not the

undocumented alien he was there to pick up, the juvenile's testimony would be merely

cumulative of Defendant's testimony to that same effect. In sum, under each of these

scenarios, the expected testimony would not be material and favorable to the defense or

would be merely cumulative to Defendant's testimony. Significantly, given the juvenile's

involvement in the marijuana smuggling, if the juvenile had been charged and not deported

from the United States, it would be unlikely that he would waive his own Fifth Amendment

rights to provide testimony in Defendant's trial. 

“As in other cases concerning the loss of material evidence, sanctions will be

warranted for deportation of alien witnesses only if there is a reasonable likelihood that the

testimony could have affected the judgment of the trier of fact.” United States v. Dring, 930

F.2d 687, 694-95 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 681-82

(1984)). As Defendant has failed to demonstrate bad faith or prejudice, no such sanction is

warranted. Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny Defendant's

Second Motion to Dismiss. 

RECOMMENDATION

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that, after its independent review of the

record, the District Court DENY the Second Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant on

December 9, 2010. (Doc. 33.) 

The parties have fourteen (14) days to serve and file written objections to the Report

and Recommendation. The parties are advised that any objections should be filed with the

following caption: CR 10-00336-TUC-FRZ.

DATED this 7th day of February, 2011.

Case 4:10-cr-00336-FRZ-JR Document 58 Filed 02/07/11 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

Case 4:10-cr-00336-FRZ-JR Document 58 Filed 02/07/11 Page 6 of 6