### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Fe br uar y 15, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16037 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 4 7 4 - C R - MGC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O S E B U I L E S M E D I N A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 15, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J os e B ui l e s M e di na , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on2

f o rw illf u llya n d k n o w in g lyu s in g a n a lte r e d p a s s p o rt. S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 3 . B ui l es ar gu es that(1) the di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on w hen i texcl ud ed e v id e n c e o f

B u ile s ’s in te n t to s e e ka s y lu m , ( 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on w he n i ta dm i tt e d the pr i ort e s t i m ony of a n una va i l abl e w i tne s s , ( 3) the d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it d e n ie d B u ile s ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s h is s ta te m e n ts to i nspect ors upo n h i s arr i val i n the U ni t ed S t at es , (4) the prosecut i on com m i tt ed m is c o n d u c t d u r in g h is tr ia l, a n d ( 5 ) in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e s u p p o rts h is c o n v ic tio n . Ea c h a r g u me n tf

a i l s . W e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n J une 26, 2004, B ui l e s a rr i ve d a tM i a m i I nt e rna t i ona l A i rporta nd att em pt ed t o u se a V enez uel an pass po rtw i th the nam e “ D avi d R od al B ernardez” a nd B ui l e s ’ s pi c tur e t o e nt e rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s . U pon hi s a rr i va l , B ui l e s w e nt thr ough a“ pr i m a ry i ns pe c t i on a r e a , ” w he r e he pr e s e nt e d hi s pa s s port , avi s a , a nd a cu st o m s d ecl arat i o n fo rm . In ad d i t i o n t o th e V en ezu el an p assp o rt , B u i l es al so ca rr ied a V en ez u elan id en ti fica ti o n ca rd w ith th e n am e “R o d al” a n d B u il es ’s pi cture, an ai rl i ne t i cketfr om S an Jose , C ost a R i ca , and a t ou r pac kage for D i sney W or l d a nd U ni ve r s a l S tudi os i n the na m e of R oda l . B ui l e s w a s di r e c t e d t o a

“ se cond ary i nspect i on ar ea , ” w here he w ai t ed on e and a hal f hou rs before he m et w i th I ns pe c t orT hom a s C a s on, w ho i nt e rvi e w e d B ui l e s . B ui l e s t ol d C a s on tha the3

w as appl yi ng for a dm i ss i on as a t ou ri stbecause he w as “ com i ng t o g o v i si tD i sney W orl d. ” C as on w as suspi ci ou s bec ause B ui l es ’ s pas sporthad a “ strong chem i ca l o d o r ” a n d c a lle d I n s p e c to rA n g e laM a rtin e z , w h o s p o k e S p a n is h m o r e f lu e n tly , to assi sth i m . B u i l es t o l d M art i n ez th ath e w as D av i d R o d al B ern ard ez fro m C aracas, V e ne z ue l a , butM a rt i ne z s us pe c t e d tha tB ui l e s w a s notf r om V e ne z ue l abe c aus e of hi s a c c e nt . M a rt i ne z a s ke d B ui l e s t o w r i t e hi s true na m e a nd pl a c e of bi rth on a pi e c e of pape ra nd l e f

tthe r oom . W he n s he r e turne d, B ui l e s ha d w r i tt e n hi s true nam e and pl ac e of bi rth. W hen M art i nez a sked B ui l es i f he w as w i l l i ng t o answ er h e rq u e s tio n s , B u ile s s a id y e s . B ui l e s t ol d M a rt i ne z tha the l e f tC ol om bi at e n da y s be f or e hi s a rr i va l i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd tr a ve l e d t o P a na m aa nd C os t aR i c a . H e e xpl a i ne d tha the p u r c h a s e d th e f

a ls e p a s s p o rt f

o r$ 3 5 0 0 f

r o m as tr e e t v e n d o ra n d b o a r d e d ap la n e in S an Jose , C ost a R i ca , because i tw as “ ea si ert o g eti nt o the U ni t ed S t at es fr om S an Jose . ” H e a l so t ol d h erthateven tho ug h h e knew i tw as i l l egal t o ent erthe U ni t ed S t a t e s w i thoutdoc um e nt a t i on, he ha d l e f thi s C ol om bi a n pa s s porti n C ol om bi aa nd di d n othave val i d d ocum ent s t o ent erthe U ni t ed S t at es . B ui l es st at ed t o M art i nez th a t n o o n e h a dc o e r c e d h im to a n s w e rh e rq u e s tio n s .4

A fe dera l grand j ury i nd i ct ed B ui l es for w i l l ful l y and kn ow i ng l y usi ng an al t er ed pass po rt , and a j ury tri al w as hel d i n S ept em ber 200 4. A ttri al , B ui l es arg u ed th ath e p resen t ed th e al t ered p assp o rtt o g ai n en try i n t o th e U n i t ed S t at es, bu ti nt ended t o app l y f

or as yl um on ce he w as i n the coun try . B ui l es expl ai ned that h e h a d b e e n p e r s e c u t e d b y th e Re v o l u t i o n a ryA rme d Fo r c e s o f Co l o mb i a( FA RC) a n d in te n d e d to e s c ap e p o litic a l p e r s e c u tio n in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T h e ju ryc o u ld n o t r e a c h av e r d ic t, a n d th e c o u rt d e c la r e d am is tr ia l. B ef ore the se cond tri al , the go vernm entm ov ed i n l i m i ne t o excl ud e e vi dence of du re ss . T he go vernm entar gu ed thatB ui l es coul d n otes t abl i sh thathe w as unde ra n i m m e di a t e thr e a tof de a th ors e r i ous bodi l yi nj uryw he n he pr e s e nt e d the a lte r e d p a s s p o rt. T h e g o v e rn m e n t a ls o m o v e d to e x c lu d e r e p o rts o n c o n d itio n s in C ol om bi a, po l i ce re po rt s of threa t s by the F A R C , and a l ett erfr om gu er i l l as th r e a te n in g B u ile s ’s lif

e . B u i l es m ad e tw o m o t i o n s. F i rst , B u i l es m o v ed t o p resen tev i d en ce o f d u ress to n e g a te in te n t. B u ile s s o u g h t to in tr o d u c e e v id e n c e o f h is p e r s e c u tio n in C ol om bi at o e s t abl i s h tha the di d notha ve the i nt e ntt o vi ol a t e the l a w . S e c ond, B ui l es m ov ed t o sup pres s s t at em ent s m ade t o the i nspect ors a tM i am i Int ernat i on al A irp o rt o n th e b a s is o f

th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. B u ile s a ls o a r g u e d th a t h is s t a t e m e nt s t o the i ns pe c t or s s houl d be s uppr e s s e d be c aus e the i nt e rvi e w w i th the5

i ns pe c t or s w a s ac us t odi a l i nt e rr oga t i on a nd he ha d notbe e n gi ve n M i r a nda w arn i n g s. T h e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed B u i l es’ s m o t i o n t o p resen ta d efen se o f d u ress because the evi dence di d n ott end t o n egat e s peci fi c i nt ent . T he courtexpl ai ned tha tB ui l e s ’ s e vi de nc e f a i l e d t o s how B ui l e s w a s unde ra n i m m e di a t e thr e a tof d eath o r seri o u s b o d i l y i n j u ry. T h e d i stri ctco u rtex cl u d ed (1 ) th e co u n try rep o rt s, ( 2) the t e s t i m ony of

a n i m m i gr a t i on l a w y e raboutthe F A R C i n C ol om bi a , a nd ( 3) evi dence thatB ui l es ca m e t o the U ni t ed S t at es t o see k asy l um . T he di stri ctcourt a ls o d e n ie d B u ile s ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s h is s ta te m e n ts to th e in s p e c to r s b e c au s e it f o u n d th a t th e in te rr o g a tio n w a s n o n - c u s to d ia l. B u ile s a ls o m o v e d to e x c lu d e th e te s tim o n yo f D o n n aE is e n b e r g , af

o r e n s ic doc um e nte xa m i ne rw ho ha d t e s t i f i e d a tthe f

i r s ttr i a l butw a s una va i l abl e f orthe s e c ond tr i a l . B ui l e s c onc e de d tha tE i s e nbe r g w oul d be una va i l abl e a ttr i a l , but arg u ed th ath i s m o t i v e fo r cro ss-ex am i n at i o n ch an g ed si n ce th e fi rsttri al b ecau se he w as prec l ud ed fr om pres ent i ng a def ense of du re ss . T he di stri ctcourtfoun d that the change of B ui l es ’ s def ense w ou l d n otaf

fe ctE i se nb er g’ s t es t i m on y and deni ed B u ile s ’s m o tio n to e x c lu d e . A tthe s e c ond tr i a l , the gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e f r om C a s on a nd M a rt i ne z a nd e nt e r e d i nt o e vi de nc e the pr e vi ous t e s t i m ony of E i s e nbe r g. C a s on6

and M art i nez t es t i fi ed abou tthei r i nt errogat i on of B ui l es . B oth t es t i fi ed thatthey d i d n o tsee B u i l es g o th ro u g h th e p ri m ary i n sp ect i o n area, bu t“ [t ] h ere i s n o w ay a p erso n can b e i n seco n d ary w i th o u tb ei n g th ro u g h p ri m ary i n sp ect i o n . ” C aso n al so t e s t i f i e d tha tB ui l e s t ol d hi m B ui l e s i nt e nde d t o go t o D i s ne yW or l d. T he gove rnm e ntr e a d i nt o e vi de nc e E i s e nbe r g’ s t e s t i m ony tha tthe phot ogr aph pa ge of the pa s s portB ui l e s ha d us e d ha d be e n l i f t e d t o s ubs t i tut e the phot ogr aph a nd r e a tta c h e d . E is e n b e r g ’s te s tim o n ya ls o s ta te d th a t a n in d e n ta tio n in th e la m in a te show ed the ori gi nal ph ot og raph had b ee n l ar ger and there w as a “ paper fiber d is tu rb a n c e ” a r o u n d th e p e r im e te ro f th e s u b s titu te d p h o to g r ap h . A f t e rthe gove rnm e ntr e s t e d, B ui l e s m a de m ot i ons f oraj udgm e ntof ac qu i tt al or a m i stri al , bo th o f w hi ch the di stri ctcourtdeni ed. B ui l es then o bj ec t ed to ( 1 ) th e p r e c lu s io n o f

h is d e f e n s e to n e g a te in te n t u n d e rth e F if th a n d S ix th A m e ndm e nt s a nd ( 2) the a dm i s s i bi l i tyof E i s e nbe r g’ s t e s t i m ony unde rthe C o n f r o n ta tio n C lau s e o f

th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. D uri ng cl osi ng ar gu m ent s, B ui l es qu es t i on ed the i nspect ors’ t es t i m on i es that B ui l e s i nt e nde d t o vi s i tD i s ne y W or l d a nd l i ve a nd w ork i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he go vernm entar gu ed thatB ui l es had i nt ended t o v i ol at e the l aw w hen h e use d an al t er ed pass po rtand q uest i on ed “ w hati ncent i ve i n the w orl d cou l d these w i tness es ha ve ha d t o l i e . ” B ui l e s obj e c t e d t o thi s r e m a rk, butthe c ourtove rrul e d the7

o b je c tio n . T h e ju ry f

o u n d B u ile s g u ilty , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d h im to t i m e s e rve d. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW B ec ause B ui l es ’ s argum ent s thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y e xcl ud ed e vi de nc e of

B ui l e s ’ s i nt e ntt o s e e k a s y l um a nd a dm i tt e d E i s e nbe r g’ s pr i or t e s t i m ony a r e c ha l l e nge s t o e vi de nt i a ryrul i ngs , w e r e vi e w the m f orabus e of d iscr etio n . U n it ed S tates v . T o d d , 1 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 2 9 , 1 3 3 1 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). B u il es ’s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr one ous l yde ni e d hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s the s t a t e m e nt s t o the i ns pe c t or s i s am i xe d que s t i on of l a w a nd f

a c t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Z apat a, 18 0 F . 3d 12 37 , 12 40 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). W hen revi ew i ng a deni al of a m o tio n to s u p p r e s s , w e a c c e p t f in d in g s o f

f a c t b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt u n le s s c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s a n d c o n s tru e th e m in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r e v a ilin g p a rty . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e rva l di , 226 F . 3d 1256, 1262 ( 11th C i r . 2000) , butw e r e vi e w the appl i c a t i on of

the l a w t o thos e f

a c t s de novo. I d. W e r e vi e w ade t e rm i na t i on of p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t d e n o v o b e c au s e it is am ix e d q u e s tio n o f la w a n d f

a c t. U n ite d S ta te s v . N o r ie g a , 1 1 7 F .3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . F i n a l l y , we r e vi e w “ c ha l l e nge s t o the s uf f i c i e nc yof

the e vi de nc e de novo, vi e w i ng the e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . F u tr e ll, 2 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .8 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON B u ile s c o n te n d s th a t ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it excl ud ed B ui l es ’ s e vi dence of i nt entt o app l y f or as yl um , (2) the di stri ctcourt ab u sed i t s d i scret i o n w h en i tad m i tt ed E i sen b erg ’ s p ri o r t est i m o n y b ecau se B ui l es ’ s def

ense had chang ed fr om the previ ou s tri al , (3) the di stri ctcourterre d w he n i tde ni e d hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s hi s s t a t e m e ntt o the i ns pe c t or s , ( 4) p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t o c c u rr e d , a n d ( 5 ) in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e s u p p o rts h is c onvi c t i on. A l though a l l hi s a r gum e nt s f a i l , w e di s c us s the m i n turn. A . W he the rE x c lus i on of

B ui le s ’s I

nte nt to Se e k A s y lum W as an A bus e of D is c r e t i on? B ui l es ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on w hen i texcl ud ed e vi de nc e tha the i nt e nde d t o appl y f ora s y l um i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s be c aus e of the p e r s e c u tio n h e s u f

f e r e d a t th e h a n d s o f

th e F A R C . B u ile s c o n te n d s th a t th is evi dence negat es hi s i nt entt o p re se ntan al t er ed pass po rt . A l tho ug h “ [a ] di stri ct c o u rt g e n e r a llyh a s b r o a d d is c r e tio n in ru lin g u p o n th e a d m is s ib ilityo f e v id e n c e ,” U n i t ed S t at es v . B razel , 1 0 2 F . 3 d 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 4 5 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ), “ [a] d efen d an tm u st general l y be perm i tt ed t o i ntrodu ce evi dence di re ct l y pert ai ni ng t o any of the ac tual e l e m e nt s of

the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e ora n a f

f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H urn, 3 6 8 F .3 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) .9

T he e vi de nc e tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte xc l ude d ne i the re s t abl i s he s ade f e ns e of dur e s s norne ga t e s B ui l e s ’ s i nt e ntt o c om m i tthe c r i m e . T o e s t abl i s h ade f e ns e of d u r e s s , “[ a ] d e f

e n d a n t m u s t s h o w th a t h e a c te d u n d e ra n im m e d ia te th r e a t o f d e a th ors e r i ous bodi l y i nj ury , tha the ha d aw e l l - gr ounde d f e a rtha tthe thr e a tw oul d be carr i ed ou t , and thathe had n o rea sonabl e opp ortun i ty t o esc ape or i nform [the] pol i c e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W a tt l e t on, 296 F . 3d 1184, 1196 n. 20 ( 11th C i r . 2002) (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. A l za t e, 47 F . 3d 11 03 , 11 04 (11th C i r. 19 95 )) . B ui l es fa i l ed t o sho w thatthe pers ec ut i on he al l egedl y s uffe re d i n C ol om bi a w as an

“ i mme d i a t e th r e a to f

d e a th o rs e r i o u s b o d i l yi n j u ry ” b e c au s e h e tr a v e l e d t o Pa n a ma and C ost a R i cafor t en days before he pres ent ed hi s a l t er ed pass po rti n the U ni t ed S t a t e s . B ui l e s ’ s f

e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on a l s o doe s nots upportade f e ns e of dur e s s . S e e W a tt l e t on, 296 F . 3d a t1196 n. 20 ( “ T he r e qui r e m e ntof i m m e di a c yof the thr e a ti s ar i gor ous one i n w hi c h f e a rof f utur e bodi l yha rm . . . w i l l not s uf f i c e . ” ) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i xtyA c r e s i n E t ow a h C ounty , 930 F . 2d 857, 8 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ) ) . B u ile s ’s m o tiv a tio n to ap p lyf o ra s y lu m in th e U n ite d S ta te s d o e s n o t n e g a te hi s i nt entt o p re se nta f

al se pass po rtt o i m m i grat i on offi ci al s. W hether a sy l um w as B ui l es ’ s goal i s i m m at er i al t o h i s m ent al st at e w hen h e purchase d a fa l se pass po rt10

a n d u s e d it to g a in e n try in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i tr e f

u s e d t o a d mi te v i d e n c e o f Bu i l e s ’ s i n t e n tt o ap p l yf o ra s y l u m. B . W hether the D istri ct

C ou rt A bu se d It

s D isc re t i on by A dm i t t i ngE ise nb er g’s P ri or T es t i m ony? B ui l e s ne xte rr one ous l y a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w h e n it a d m itte d th e p r io rte s tim o n yo f f o r e n s ic d o c u m e n t e x p e rt E is e n b e r g . B ui l e s ’ s a r gum e nti s tw of ol d: ( 1) the gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o m e e ti t s bur de n t o s how th at E isen b er g w o u ldb e u n av ailab le fo r trial; an d (2 ) th e p re clu sio n o f B u il es ’s d u r e s s d e f

e n s e c h a n g e d h o w h e w o u ld h a v e c r o s s - e x a m in e d E is e n b e r g . B o th a r g u m e n ts f

a il. U nde rthe F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e , “ i f

the pa rtya ga i ns tw hom the t e s t i m ony i s now of

f e r e d . . . ha d a n opportuni tya nd s i m i l a rm ot i ve t o de ve l op the te s tim o n y b y d ir e c t, c r o s s , o rr e d ir e c t e x a m in a tio n ,” th e n th e p r io rte s tim o n yis adm i ss i bl e. F ed. R . E vi d. 80 4(a) . T he S i xth A m endm entst at es , “ In al l cr i m i nal pr os e c ut i ons , the a c c us e d s ha l l e nj oythe r i ght. . . t o be c onf r ont e d w i th the w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im .” U .S . C o n s t., A m e n d . V I . T h e te s tim o n yo f aw itn e s s a t a pr i ortr i a l i s a dm i s s i bl e i f ( 1) the w i tne s s i s una va i l abl e a nd ( 2) the de f e nda ntha d a p r i o ro p p o rtu n i ty t o c r o s s e x a mi n e th e w i tn e s s . Cr a w f o r d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 1 U . S. 36 , 68 , 12 4 S . C t . 13 54 , 13 74 (200 4). W e do n otconsi der B ui l es ’ s argum entthat the go vernm entdi d n otes t abl i sh thatE i se nb er g w as un avai l abl e bec ause B ui l es11

w a i ve d thi s a r gum e ntw he n he c onc e de d tha tE i s e nbe r g w a s una va i l abl e i n the di s tr i c tc ourt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 733, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1 7 7 7 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . B e c au s e B u ile s h a d a“s im ila rm o tiv e ” to c r o s s e x a m in e E is e n b e r g a t h is fi rs ttri al , E i se nb er g’ s pri or t es t i m on y i s a dm i ss i bl e. T he defendantm usthave a

“ s i m i l a rm ot i ve ” t o c r os s e xa m i ne the w i tne s s i n the pr e vi ous tr i a l . F e d. R . E vi d. 804( b) ( 1) . A “ s i m i l a rm ot i ve doe s notm e a n i de nt i c a l m ot i ve . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l es , 29 0 F . 3d 13 41 , 13 53 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). A l tho ug h B ui l es ’ s def ense theory changed, the charges agai nsthi m w er e i dent i ca l , and the go vernm entpres ent ed E i s e nbe r g’ s t e s t i m ony t o pr ove the s a m e e l e m e nta s a tthe f i r s ttr i a l

— tha tthe p assp o rtB u i l es u sed w as al t ered . S ee i d . at1 3 5 3 (fi n d i n g th atth e m o t i v e t o cro sse xa m i ne w a s notdi s s i m i l a rw he r e the c ha r ge s w e r e the s a m e a nd the gove rnm e nt of f e r e d the pr i ort e s t i m ony t o pr ove the s a m e e l e m e nt ) . B e c aus e the unde r l y i ng i s s ue s w e r e l e ga l l y a nd f a c tua l l y s i m i l a r , B ui l e s ’ s m ot i va t i on t o c r os s - e xa m i ne E i s e nbe r g di d notc ha nge . S e e i d. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on w h e n it a d m itte d E is e n b e r g ’s te s tim o n yin to e v id e n c e . C . W h eth er th e D istri ct

C o u rt E rred W h en It D en i ed B u i les’s Mo t i o n to Su

p p ress? B u il es also co n ten d s th at th e d istrict co u rt erre d w h en itd en ied B u il es ’s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s hi s s t a t e m e nt s t o i ns pe c t or s be c aus e he w a s notgi ve n M i r a nda12

w a rn in g s b e f

o r e ac u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n . “[ A ]lie n s a t th e b o r d e ra r e e n title d to M i r a ndaw a rni ngs be f

or e c us t odi a l i nt e rr oga t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M oy a , 74 F . 3d 11 17 , 11 19 (11th C i r. 19 96 ). A suspec ti s i n “ cust od i ali nt errogat i on ” i f, “ un der th e to ta lityo f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , ar e a s o n ab le m a n in th e s u s p e c t’s p o s itio n w o u ld fe el a r es tra i nton hi s f

re edom of m ov em entt o such ext entthathe w ou l d n otfe el f r e e to le a v e .” I d . ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . P h illip s , 8 1 2 F .2 d 1 3 5 5 , 1 3 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . B e c au s e “s o m e d e g r e e o f q u e s tio n in g a n d o f

d e la yis n e c e s s a rya n d is t o b e e xp ec t ed atentrypo i nt s i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es , . . . qu es t i on i ng atthe bo rder m u s t r is e to ad is tin c tlya c c u s a to ryle v e l b e f o r e it c a n b e s a id th a t ar e a s o n ab le p e r s o n w o u ld f

e e l r e s tr a in ts o n h is ab ilityto r o a m .” I d . a t 1 1 2 0 . B u ile s w a s n o t in c u s to d y w h e n C a s o n a n d M a rtin e z in te rv ie w e d h im . C a s o n a n d M a rtin e z d id n o t r e s tr a in h im , h e w a s n o t to ld th a t h e w a s u n d e ra rr e s t, and h e never a sked t o l ea ve. S ee M oya, 74 F . 3d at11 19 . B ui l es sa i d thathe w as un der no com pu l si on w hen M art i nez a sked i f he w as coer ce d t o answ erher q u e s tio n s . A lth o u g h B u ile s w a ite d o n e a n d ah a lf h o u r s f o rh is in te rv ie w , th is del aydo es no tri se t o the “ ac cusa t ory l evel ” of acust od i al i nt errogat i on . Id. ; se e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c D ow e l l , 250 F . 3d 1354, 1363 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ [ T ] he r e i s no f i xe d l i m i tt o the l e ngth of que s t i oni ng. ” M c D ow e l l , 250 F . 3d a t1363. T he13

d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrw h e n it d e n ie d B u ile s ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s h is s ta te m e n ts a t th e s e c o n d a ry in s p e c tio n a r e a . D . W h e th e rth e P r o s e c u tio n C o m m itte d Mis c o n du c t th a t R e q u ir e s a N e w T r ia l? B ui l es al so ar gu es thatthe prosec ut i on com m i tt ed m i sc on du ctw hen i tst at ed a ttr i a l tha tB ui l e s tr a ve l e d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a s at our i s t , ha d no pe ndi ng pe t i t i on s e e ki ng i m m i gr a t i on be ne f i t s , a nd kne w tha ti tw a s i l l e ga l t o l i ve a nd w ork i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thoutf

i l i ng ape t i t i on. B ui l e s f urthe rc ont e nds tha tthe pr os e c ut i on co m m i tt ed m i sco n d u ctw h en i tst at ed “ w h ati n cen t i v e i n th e w o rl d co u l d th ese w i tness es have had t o l i e” i n i t s c l osi ng ar gu m ent . “ T o fi nd prosec ut ori al m i sco n d u ct , . . . (1 ) th e rem ark s m u stb e i m p ro p er, an d (2 ) th e rem ark s m u st pr e j udi c i a l l y a f

f e c tthe s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s of the de f e nda nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E y s te r , 9 4 8 F .2 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . I t is im p r o p e rf o rth e p r o s e c u tio n to b o ls te raw itn e s s b y v o u c h in g f o rh is c r e d ib ilityif

( 1 ) th e “ju ryc o u ld r e a s o n ab ly b el i ev e th atth e p ro secu t o r i n d i cat ed a p erso n al b el i ef i n th e w i tn ess’ s cred i b i l i ty” o r ( 2 ) th e g o v ern m en t all u d es to ev id en ce n o t i n th e r ec o rd to su p p o rt th e w itn es s’s te s tim o n y . I d . T h e s ta te m e n ts ab o u t B u ile s ’s s ta tu s a s ato u r is t w ith o u t v a lid do cum ent at i on and h i s kno w l edge thatthe l ac k o f val i d d ocum ent at i on w as i l l egal w er e noti m prop er . C as on t es t i fi ed thatB ui l es had a t ou r pac kage for D i sney14

W or l d, a nd M a rt i ne z t e s t i f i e d tha tB ui l e s t ol d he rhe ha d no pe ndi ng pe t i t i ons or o th e rv a lidd o c u m e n ta tio n . M a rtin e z a ls o te s tif ie d th a t B u ile s to ld h e rh e k n e w it w as i l l eg al t o l i v e an d w o rki n th e U n i t ed S t at es w i th o u tfi l i n g a p et i t i o n . B ecau se th e p r o s e c u tio n r e f

e rr e d to e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d , th e r e m a rk s w e r e n o t im p r o p e r . T h e p ro secu t i o n ’ s st at em en t , “ w h ati n cen t i v e i n th e w o rl d co u l d th ese w i tness have had t o l i e, ” i s a l so no ti m prop er . T he prosecut i on rhet ori ca l l y a sked w ha tC a s on a nd M a rt i ne z w oul d ga i n byl y i ng. T he a r gum e ntdi d not“ pl a c e [ ] the pres t i ge of the go vernm entbehi nd the w i tness , by m aki ng expl i ci tpers on al as su ra n ce s o f th e w itn es s’ v er ac ity” o r e x p re ss a “p er so n al b elief in th e w itn es s’s c r e d ib ility .” E y s te r , 9 4 8 F .2 d a t 1 2 0 6 .

E . W he the rSuf

f i c i e nt E v i de nc e Suppor t

s B ui le s ’s C onv i c t i on? B ui l e s a r gue s tha tthe e vi de nc e i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s upportac onvi c t i on be c aus e the gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e tha the e ve r“ e xhi bi t e d or d is p la y e d ” th e a lte r e d p a s s p o rt to im m ig r a tio n o f f ic ia ls . I t is ille g a l to “w illf u lly and k no w i ng l y use [] . . . [a ] fa l se , forged, coun t er fe i t ed, m ut i l at ed, or al t er ed p a s s p o rt.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 3 . “W e m u s t d e te rm in e o n r e v ie w w h e th e rar e a s o n ab le j ury c oul d ha ve f

ound tha tthe e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d the appe l l a nt s ’ gui l tbe y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t a rr e tt , 55 F . 3d 1525, 1541 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R us s o, 796 F . 2d 1443, 1455 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ) . I f the15

gove rnm e ntr e l i e s upon c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , “ r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s , a nd not m er e s pecul at i on , m ustsupp ortthe j ury’ s ver di ct . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P er ez -T ost a, 36 F . 3d 15 52 , 15 57 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). A l tho ug h C as on and M art i nez di d n otse e B ui l es go throu gh the pri m ary in s p e c tio n a r e a , w h e r e tr a v e le r s a r e a s k e d to p r e s e n t th e irp a s s p o rts , b o th i n sp ect o rs t est i fi ed th attrav el ers can n o ten t er th e seco n d ary i n sp ect i o n area u n l ess th e y f ir s t p a s s th r o u g h th e p r im a ryin s p e c tio n a r e a . M a rt i ne z a l s o t e s t i f i e d the B ui l es di d n othave hi s pas sportbecause i nspect ors i n the pri m ary i nspect i on ar ea h a d ta k e n it a w a y f

r o m h im . B a s e d o n th is te s tim o n ya n d v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm ent , the j ury c ou l d rea sonabl y i nferthat B u ile s p a s s e d th r o u g h a n d p r e s e n te d h is p a s s p o rt a t th e p r im a ryin s p e c tio n a r e a . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. A l Ji bo ri , 90 F . 3d 22 , 26 (2d C i r. 19 96 ) ( ho l di ng thata j ury c oul d r e a s onabl y i nf

e rtha tade f

e nda ntha d pa s s e d thr ough the pr i m a ryi ns pe c t i on a r e aw h e n h e w a s d ir e c te d to th e s e c o n d a ryin s p e c tio n a r e aa n d in s p e c to r s h a d h is a lte r e d p a s s p o rt.) . I V . CONCL US I ON B u i l es’ s co n v i ct i o n i s AF F I RME D.