Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02051/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02051-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Antonio Grado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

f 1 LEO 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U<1ite<l Stat~ CDurt 'Jf App~!, 

Ti!nth C:r,:,1:~ 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 111eeo 

ROBERT 1. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOSE ANTONIO GRADO, a/k/a 

JOSE GRADO-ZAMARRON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2051 

(D. C. No. CR 88-390SC) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, MCWILLIAMS, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(1}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Jose Antonio Grado was convicted by a jury of the crime of 

illegal presence in the United States after having been deported, 

a violation of 8 u.s.c. S 1326. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2051 Document: 01019959074 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 1 
On appeal, Mr. Grado asserts, as the sole error, that his 

conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, 

Mr. Grado asserts that the Government failed to meet its burden of 

proof as to the issue of the identity of the defendant. We review 

all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, in the light most 

favorable to the Government and must affirm if a rational juror 

could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United 

States v. Levario, 877 F.2d 1483, 1485 (10th Cir. 1989). 

The parties stipulated that Mr. Grado was found in Deming, 

New Mexico, on August 15, 1988, the date of the alleged crime. 

The parties further stipulated that Mr. Grado was born in Casas 

Grandes, Mexico; that on August 2, 1988, Mr. Grado was 

fingerprinted and those fingerprints appeared on the documents 

entered into evidence as Government's Exhibits 2 and 2a. Thus the 

sole issue to be tried, for all practical purposes, was whether or 

not Mr. Grado had been previously deported from the United States. 

The Government called Mr. Salgado, an agent for the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, who testified that in 1985 

he worked in the detention processing portion of the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service, and that in 1985 he escorted an alien 

named Jose Antonio Martinez Grado across the border into Mexico. 

He also testified that that person, who was then deported, signed 

the document entitled "Warrant of Deportation," Government Exhibit 

3, and placed his right thumbprint thereon. 

Officer Scott Winans of the Las Cruces Police Department 

Records Division, Identification Section, testified that the 

thumbprints given by Mr. Grado on Government Exhibits 2 and 2a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2051 Document: 01019959074 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 2 
, 

were identical to those contained on Exhibit 3, the warrant of 

deportation, by the person deported in 1985. He further testified 

the right thumbprint contained on the 1985 warrant of deportation 

and those given by Mr. Grado after being apprehended in 1988 in 

New Mexico were made by "one and the same person." The officer 

testified that in his opinion it was not necessary to verify more 

than seven points of similarity of fingerprints to identify an 

individual. He also testified that it was not necessary to have a 

whole set of fingerprints, as opposed to only the print of the 

right thumb, to make an accurate determination as to identity. 

Mr. Grado now argues that Officer Winans did not make any 

comparisons with any fingerprints other than Mr. Grade's, that the 

officer did not attempt further analysis of the fingerprints to 

determine whether more than seven points of similarity might be 

present, and that he examined only the right thumbprint; 

therefore, "the aggregate possibility of erroneous result created 

by the above-noted shortcomings in Winans' comparison compels the 

conclusion that the defendant's identity as the deportee in 

question was not been [sic] established beyond a reasonable 

doubt." Brief of Appellant at 1-2. We are not persuaded by Mr. 

Grado's arguments. 

The issue of the accuracy of Officer Winans' opinion was 

forcefully argued to the jury by Mr. Grado's counsel. Officer 

Winans testified that the two thumbprints were made by the same 

individual, and he testified as to his reasons for expressing this 

opinion. It therefore became a question for the jury. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2051 Document: 01019959074 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 3 
• 

• 

It should also be noted that the fingerprint evidence was not 

the only evidence identifying the defendant with the deportee. In 

addition to containing the defendant's fingerprint, the warrant of 

deportation contained information concerning sex, race, height, 

weight, eyes, hair, date of birth, social security number, and the 

signature of the person deported in 1985. Evidence was also 

before the jury comparing the signatures of the person deported in 

1985 and Mr. Grado. Exhibit 2a and Warrant of Deportation. The 

jury could also compare the physical characteristics of the person 

deported in 1985 as shown on the warrant of deportation with the 

physical characteristics of the defendant who was present in the 

courtroom. 

We cannot say the evidence was insufficient to sustain the 

conviction of Mr. Grado, and the decision of the District Court is 

therefore AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2051 Document: 01019959074 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 4