### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 50670

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. RI CA RD O T I RA DO- T I RA DO D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B E N AV ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. F O R T U N A T O P
. B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: Ri c ar do Ti r ad o - Ti r ad o ( “ Ti r a d o - Tir ad o ” ) w as c o nvi c t e d o f e nc o ur ag i ng and i nduci n g Rodr i go G ar ay - Ram i r e z ( “ G ar ay - Ram i r e z ” ) , a n a l i e n, t o e nt e rt he U n i t ed S t ates w i t h kn ow l edg e or reckl ess di sregard of t h e factt h at s u ch en t ry w as unl aw f

uli n vi ol at i on o f

8 U
. S. C

. § 1324( a) ( 1) (A)

. Ti r ado- Ti r ado a ss er t s t hat th e in tr o d u c tio n o f a v id e o tap edde p o s itio n o f G a r a y -R a m ir e z a t t r ia l v io la te dh is
r i ght s und e rt he Conf r o nt at i o n Cl aus e o f

t he Si xt h Am e ndm en t be c aus e t he go ve r nm e ntfai l e d t o s ho w t hatG ar ay - Ram i r e z w as una va i l ab l e f o rt r i ala nd Ti r ado- Ti r ado di d nothave a f ul land fai roppo r t uni t y t o c r os s exam i ne G ar ayRa mi r e z d u r i n gt he vi d e o t a p e dd e p o s i t i o n . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e db e l o w, we United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 19, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2

VA C A T E th e ju d g m e n t a n dR E M A N D fo rn e w tr ia l. I . Bac kgr ound A . E f

f or t s t o Sec ure G ar ay- R am i r ez ’ s P r es ence atTri al G ar ay - Ram i r e z ’ s v i de o t ap e d d e po s i t i o n was t ak e n by t he g o ve r nm e nta nd Ti r ado- Ti r ado’ s c ounse lon A ugust29, 2006. G ar ay- R am i r ez w as advi se d t hat t h e case w ou l d be tr i ed at a f u t u re date an d t h at h e w ou l d be ask ed to com e back
an d app ear as a w i t n ess at t ri al
. H e w as al so asked t o provi de hi s con t act i n form a t i on t o hi s at t or ney. H e w as subs equent l y r el eas ed and r et urned to M exi co. O n D e c e m b e r8 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r ts e tt h e f ir s td a yo f T ir a d o -T ir a d o ’s t ri alf or Feb rua ry 20, 200 7. Th e C u st om s and B order Protec t i on of f i cer assi gn ed t o t he c as e, R aym on R os ado, at t em pt ed t o c ont ac t G ar ay- R am i r ez pr i ort o t r i al
u s in ga n a d d r e s s a n d te le p h o n e n u m b e r p r o v id e db yG a r a y -R a m ir e z ’ s co u n s e l. T h e t el eph on e nu m ber di d n otw ork. O n F ebru ary 12, 2 007 , j u steight da ys pri or t o t r i al , R osa d o se nta l et t ert o G ar ay- R am i r ez usi ng t he addr es s pro vi ded by G ar ay- R am i r ez ’ s c ounse l
. The l et t ernot i f i ed G ar a y - Rami r e z of t he pendi ng t r i al d a t e an d l ocat i on ; requested t h at he app ear an d that he contactR osado; p rov i d ed h i m w i th i n form a ti on reg a rd i n g th e p ort of en try th a t he sh ou l du se to
e nt e rt he U ni t e d St at e s a nd who w o ul d m eet h i m t he r e ; a nd s t at e d t hathe
w oul d be r ei m burs ed for h i s t r avelex pense s. Rosado al so s poke t o G ar ayR am i r ez ’ s br ot her , Fel i c i ano, w ho sai d thatG ar ay- R am i r ez had no t el ephone at h is h o m e in M e x ic o a n dth a t h e w o u lda tt e m p t t o re l a y th e in fo r m a tio n to h is br ot her
. Rosado al so ques t i oned Fel i c i ano abo uthi s r ol e i n br i ngi ng G ar ayR am i rez i n t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates. O n F e b rua ry 15, 200 7, R osado spok e t o t h e ow n ers of t h e veh i cl e sei zed fro m T ira d o -T ira d o a n dob ta in e dth e n a m e of T ira d o -T ira d o ’ s c o m m o n -law w ife i n H at c h, N e w M e xi c o . Ros ad o o bt ai ne d he rt e l e pho ne num be rf r o m t heThis court has rej ected the argument that the procedures estab lished in § 1 324 (d) are 1 unconstitutional, b ut has stated that the statutedoes not elimin ate therequirement th at the government establi sh the unavail abilityof a witness before the witness’s deposition testimony 3 t el ephone di r ec t or y. O n Februar y 16, R os ado r evi ew ed t he c al ll og of t he c el l ul ar te le p h o n e p o s s e s s e d b y T ir a d o -T ir a d o a t th e tim e o f h is a r r e s t. O n e o f th e ca lls
w as m ad e t o W est ern U n i on , an d R osado su bp oen ed W est ern U n i on records f or tr a n s a c tio n s m a d e i n T ir a d o -T ir a d o ’ s n a m e . A n o th e rca ll w a s m a d e to S e r g io B an u el os, the n am e on the resi den tal i en card t h at G aray-R am i rez t ri ed to u se t o e nt e rt he U ni t e d St at e s . H o w e ve r , t he s e l e ad s di d no ta s s i s t t he g o ve r nm e nt i n l oc at i ng G ar ay- R a m i r ez . Rosado al so c hec ked i m m i gr at i on and c r i m i nal
r e c o r d s b u tw a s u n a b le to lo c a t e a n yin fo r m a t io n r e g a r d in gG a r a y -R a m ir e z ’s
w h ereabou t s. B . Ti r ado- Ti r ado’ s Tri al O n t h e f

i rstdayof

t ri al , T i rado-Ti rado f i l ed a m ot i on t o qu ash t h e vi deo d ep ositi on on the b a sis th a t th e gov ern m en t ha dfa i l ed to m a k e su ff i ci en t ef forts t o sec u re G aray-R am i rez’ s pres e n ce at t ri al
. Th e di st ri ctcourtqu est i on ed
w h et h er a l et t er s en tei gh td ays bef ore tr i alw as calc u l ated to ob t ai n a res pon se b y th e tri a lda te an dstated tha t th e gov ern m en t sh ou l d h a ve b eg u n i ts eff orts
s o o ne r . The g o ve r nm e ntc o nc e de d t hat“ pr e fe r ab l y a l e t t e rs ho ul d ha ve g o ne o ut severalw eeks befor e i t d id .” N evert h el ess, t h e courtadm i t t ed the vi deo de po s i t i o n pu r s uantt o 8 U
. S. C. § 1 32 4( d) , w hi c h pr o vi de s t hat“ no t w i t hs t and i ng an y provi si on of t h e F ederal R u l es of E vi den ce, t h e vi deotaped
. . . dep osi t i on of
a w i t n ess . . . w h o ha s been d epo rted or ot h erw i se expel l ed f rom t h e U n i t ed St at es , ori s ot her w i se unabl e t o t es t i f y, m ay be adm i t t ed i nt o e vi denc e i n an act i on broug h tf

or [t ran sp o rting i l l egal al i en s] i f t h e w i t n ess w as ava i l able f or cros s- exam i n ati on an d the de po s it i on ot h erw i se c om pl i es w i t h t h e F ederalR u l es o f E v id e n c e .” 1canb e a dmitte d at trial. See United States v. Agu ilar-Tamayo , 30 0 F .3d 5 62, 565(5th Cir.

2 0 0 2), cited by United States v. CalderonLopez , 2 6 8F .App ’x2 7 9 , 2 8 8

–8 9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 4 A tt ri al , C u st om s and B order Prot e c t i o n o f f i c e rM ar ga r it a Cre s pi n t e s t i f i ed t h at on A u gus t1 4, 2 00 6, s he s t o ppe d at r uc k d r ive n b y Ti r ad o - Ti r ad o a tt he P asa D elN ort e checkp oi n t
. Tir ad o- T i rado ga ve C respi n hi s resi den ta l i en card
an d that of h i s pa ssenger. Tir ad o- T i rado’ s c ard ap pea red t o be val i d. H ow ever, t h e ph ot ograp h on the pa ssenger’ s c ard d i d n otres em bl e t h e passen ger. W h en C r es pi n ques t i oned t hem abo utt he pas se nger’ s c ar d, bo t h m en avo i ded e ye c o nt ac ta nd l o o ke d s t r ai ghta he ad
. The y s e e m e d un e as y an d nervo us , a nd Ti r ado- Ti r ado l i c ked hi s l i ps r epe at edl y. T i ra d o-T i r ado s ai d t he t w o m en had been fr i en ds a l on g t i m e, w h i ch C respi n foun d u n u sua la s the pa ssenger l ooked
m u ch you n ger tha n T i rado-Ti rado. Sh e ref erred t h e t ruck to s econd ary in s p e c tio n w ith th e n o ta tio n “p o s s ib le im p o s to r .” W i l l i am Sut l ive , a Cus t o m s a nd Bor de r Pr o t e c t i o n o f f i c e r , t e s t i f

i e d t hathe i n t ervi ew ed T i rado-Ti r ad o a ts e c o nda r y i ns pe c t i o n. Sutl ive t est i f i ed that Tir ad oT i ra d o w a s u n coo p era tive , su l l en , an dan gr y . T i ra d o-T i ra d o refu sed to ackn ow l edg e w h et h er he un derst ood h i s Mi r andari gh t s. O ffic e r R o s a d o te s tifie d th a t h e in te r v ie w e d G a r a y -R a m ir e z , w h o t o ld R osado that G ar ay - Ram ir e z ’ s b r o t he r , F el i ci an o, ha d m ad e t h e arrang em en t s f or G ar ay - Ram i rez t o c o m e i nt o t he U ni t e d St at e s . Ros ad o a l s o t e s t i f i e d a bo ut
s t at e m e nt s t hatF e l i c i ano m ad e t o Ros ad o t he w e e k b e f o r e t r i al , w hi c h was t he f i r s tt i m e t hatRos ad o ha d s po ke n w i t h Fel i c i ano . Fe l i c i ano t o l d Ro s ad o t hathe had pai d f

ora bus t i c ketforG ar ay- R am i r ez to tr avelto Ju ar ez and t hatG ar ayR am i r ez ’ s br ot her

- i n- l aw , C huy, had m ade t he ar r angem ent s t o b r i ng G ar ayR a m i rez i n to the U n i ted S tates. R osa d o stated th a t t h i s ac cou n t con fl i cted w i th G ar ay - Ram i r e z ’ s s t atem e ntt o Ros ad o t hatFe l i c i ano ha d m ad e a l lo f t he5

arran gem en t s. C u st om s and B order Pa t rolagen tP ablo C astr o test i f i ed t h at h e arres t ed T i rado-Ti rado i n 200 1 f or al i en t ran sport i n g, w h i ch w as charged as a m i sde m eanor . At t he t i m e o f t hatar r es t , Ti r ado- Ti r ado a dm i t t ed th a the had t r anspo r t ed peopl e bef or e. Ti r ado- Ti r ado i ndi c at ed t hathe di d s o b ec ause i tw as a far w al k an d that som et h i n g coul d h ap pen to them
. H ow ever, C astr o t est i f i ed t h at t h e al i en s pai d T i rado-Ti rado $1 , 000 each to t ran sportt h em i n t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates. G aray-R am i rez’ s vi deo d eposi t i on w as pl ayed f orth e j u ry. G aray-R am i rez t e s t i f i ed that Fe l i c i ano cal l ed h i m an d tol d h i m t o com e t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates. G aray-R am i rez tes t i f i ed t h at Fel i ci an o t ol d h i m t o t al k to a m an w h ose brot h ersin -l a w w o u ld p ic k h im u p . G a r a y -R a m ir e z t o o k a b u s to J u a r e z , w h e r e h is a u n t ’s brot h er- i n - l aw , a m an w h ose l ast n am e w as C al deron , p i cked h i m u p an d took hi m t o hi s ho us e , w he r e G ar ay - Ram i r e z s t ay e d f o rt w o t o t hr e e da ys . Tw o m e n, k n o w n t o h i m a s E lC h u r r o a n dE lP e r r o , o b t a i n e da n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a r df

o rh i m. Fel i c i ano c al l ed and t ol d G ar ay- R am i r ez to go to a c at hedr al , w her e he w oul d be pi c ke d up
. G ar ay - Ram i r e z w ai t e d a tt he c at he dr al , w he r e Ti r ad o - Ti r ad o c am e a nd pi c ke d hi m up. Gar ay - Ram i r e z t est i f i e d t hathe b e l i e ve d Ti r ad o - Ti r ad o reco gn i ze dh i m be ca u se F eli ci a n o h a di n stru cted G a ra y-R a m ir ez to w ea r a w h i te h at. Th ey t h en drove to t h e border checkp oi n t
. B ef ore t h ey arrived at t h e border
c he c kpo i nt , Ti r ad o - Ti r ad o a s ke d Gar ay - Ram i r ez forhi s i de nt i f i c at i o n c ar d. O t h erw i se, T i rado -T ira do d i d n otspeak t o G aray-R am i rez duri n g t h e drive. G ar ay- R am i r ez s t at ed t hathe had nev ers ee n T i r ado- Ti r ado b ef ore th a tday. G aray-R am i rez s t ated t h at h e di d n otpayan yon e t o t ak e hi m i n t o t h e U n i t ed S t a t e s , a n dh e d i dn o tk n o w wh a ta r r a n g e me n t s w e r e ma d e o n h i s b e h a l f

. H e c o n c e d e dth a t h e w a s g o in gto b e re le a s e dto re tu r n h o m e in e x c h a n g e fo rh is6

t es t i m ony. T ir a d o -T ir a d o ’ s co u n s e l a r g u e dto th e ju r yth a t h is c l ie n t w a s s im p ly givi ng s om eo ne a r i de w i t houtex pec t at i on o f com pensa t i on an d thatther e w as n o evi den ce t h at h e w as i n vol ved i n a prearran ged pl an t o bri n g G aray-R am i rez i n to th e U n i ted S tates or th a t h e kn ew G a ra y-R a m i rez ’ s en try w a s u n l a w ful. In order t o esta bl i sh T i rado-Ti rado’ s kn ow l edg e or reckl ess di sregard of t h e fact t hatG ar ay- R am i r ez ’ s en t r y w as unl aw f ul , t he go ver nm entpoi nt ed o utt hat T i rado-Ti rado ap pea red nervou s at i n spect i on , t h at Ti rado-Ti rado fal sel y st ated at i n spect i o n thathea nd Gar ay - R am i rez w ere l on gti m e f ri en ds, an d that Tir ad oTi r ad o p i c ke d Gar ay - Ram i r e z up i n f r o nto f t he c hur c h, t he pr e ar r ang e d m e e t i ng pl ac e , and dr o ve di r e c t l y t o t he b o r de rw i t ho uts pe ak i ng t o hi m . The g o ve r nm e nt al so noted T i rado-Ti rado’ s pri or c on vi ct i on f or t ran sport i n g al i en s. T h e j u ry f

ou n d T i rado-Ti rado gu i l t y. Th e di st ri ctcourtsentenced T i radoT i rado to t en m on t h s i n pri son an d a three- year t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease. T ir a d o -T ir a d o file da tim e lyn o tic e o f a p p e a l. I I . St andard of

R evi ew T h is co u r t r e v ie w s a C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e ch a lle n g e d e n o v o . Un i t ed St at e s v . Al v ar ado

- Val dez , 5 2 1 F .3d 337 , 341 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. Su ch cl ai m s, h o w e v e r , a r e s u b je c t t o h a r m le s s e r r o rre v ie w . I d. ; s e eals o Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ji m enez , 4 6 4 F .3d 5 5 5 , 5 5 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Un itedS ta tes v. B ell , 367 F. 3d 452, 4 6 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). III . W h eth er T h ere W a s a V i o l a ti o n of t h e C o n f ro n tati o n C l a u se T h e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t s t a te s th a t “ [i]n a ll crim i n a lpr ose cu ti on s, the accu sed sh a l le nj oyth e ri gh t .
. . to be con fron tedw i th t he w i t ne s s e s a ga i ns thi m . ” U
. S. Cons t
. Am e nd. VI
. I n C raw f ord v. W ash i ngt on , 5 4 1 U
. S

. 36 , 53

– 5 4 , 68 ( 2 0 0 4 ), the S u p rem e C ou r t h eld th a t t h e righ t t o c o n fr o n ta tio n b a r s th e “a d m is s io n o f te s tim o n ia l s ta te m e n ts o f a w itn e s s w h o d idTirado-Tirado appears to challen gethe a dmissionof the vi deotaped deposition solely 2 on c o n s titutio n al gro un d s , not o n any in d e p e n d e nt a d m i s s ib ility r e quir e m e nt i m p osed b y statute or the Federal Rule s of Evidence. Crawford

didnotch an ge the definitionof “un avail ab ility” for C onfrontationC lau se 3 purpose s; pre- Crawford c a se s onthisp oint re maingoo d law.

7 notappear attr i alu nl es s he w as unavai l abl e t o t es t i f y, and t he def

endanthad h a da p ri or op p ortu n i ty f orc r os s- ex a m i n a ti on . ” S ee als o Un i t ed S t ate s v. Harper , 5 2 7 F .3 d3 9 6 , 4 0 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Flores , 286 F. A pp’ x 206, 214 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. Th ere i s no di spu t e t h at t h e pl aying of the vi deotaped dep osi t i on consti t u t ed the ad m i ssi on of t estim o n ia l st atem en t s of a w i t n ess w h o di d n ot
a p p e a ra t tr ia l. A t iss u e in th is c a s e is w h e th e rG a r a y -R a m ir e z w a s “u n a v a ila b le t o t e s t i f

y” a tTi r ad o - Ti r ad o ’ s t r i al , a nd whet he rTi r ad o - Ti r ad o ha d apri or opp ort u n i t y t o cr oss- exam i n e G aray-R am i rez. 2 A . U n a v a il a b il ity A w i t ne s s i s “ unav ai l ab l e ” f o rConf rontat i on Cl aus e pur po s e s i f t he

“ pro se c ut or i alaut hor i t i es have m ade a go o d -fa ith effor t t o obtai n hi s presence a t tr ia l
. ” O h io v
. R o b er ts , 448 U
. S. 56, 74 ( 1980) ( quot i ng B arb e rv. Page , 390 U .S . 7 1 9 , 7 2 4

– 7 2 5 (1 9 6 8 )), overr u led on ot h er groun d s by C raw f ord , 541 U
. S. 36. 3

“ T h e l en gths t o w h i ch the prosecuti on m u stgo t o produ ce a w itn e ss . . . i s a q u estion of rea son a b l en ess . ” I d. ( quot i ng Calif

ornia v. G ree n , 399 U
. S. 149, 189
n .22 (19 7 0 ) ( H a rla n , J ., co n cu rr in g)). “T h e law d o e s n o t r e q u ir e t h e d o in gof a f u t i l e act
. T h u s, i f n o possibi l i t y of procuri n g t h e w i t n ess exi st s ( as, f or exam pl e, t he w i t ne s s ’i nt e r ve ni ng de at h) , ‘ go o d fait h’de m and s no t hi ng o f t he pr o s e c ut i o n. Buti f t he r e i s a po s s ibi l i t y, a lbe i tr e m o t e , t hata f f i r m at ive m e as ur e s m i ght p r o d u c e th e d e c la r a n t, th e o b l i g a t i o n o f g o o dfa ith m a yd e m a n dth e ir effe ctu a ti on . ” R o b er ts , 4 48 U
. S. a t7 4. “ Bec aus e o f t he i m po r t anc e o ur const it ut i o nalt r ad it i o n a t t ach es t o a defen da n t ’ s r i gh tt o conf rontat i on , t h e ‘ goodThis C ourttre ats the Confront ation Clause unavailabilityinquiryas identical to the 4 unavailabilityin quiry under Rule80 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Evi dence , which defines awitnes s asbeingun avail ab lewhe nheis “ab se nt fromth e h earin gan d the prop onent of [his] st ate me nt h a s b eenun ab le top rocure[his] pres enceb yp roce ss orotherrea so n ab leme an s.” See Ca lde ron–Lopez , 2 6 8F .App ’xat 2 8 8 ; Agu ilar-Tamayo , 30 0 F .3d at 5 65 (“Unavailability mu stordinarilyals o b e es tab li sh edto sati sf yth e re quirem entsof the C onfrontationC lau se .”). 8 fai t h ef f ort ’requi rem en tdem an ds m u ch m ore t h an a m erel y perf u n ct ory ef

f ort by the govern m en t , ” bu t “ [ t ] h e i n evi t able qu est i on of preci sel y h ow m u ch ef f ort i s r e qui r e d o n t he pa r to f t he g o ve r nm e ntt o r e ac h t he l e ve lo f a ‘ go o d fai t h’a nd

‘ rea son a b l e’eff

ort elud es a b solu te reso l u ti on a p p lic a b l e to a l lcas es.” Un i t ed S ta tes v. A lli e , 978 F
. 2d 140 1, 140 6, 140 8 ( 5th C i r. 199 2)

. T h e prosecuti on bears th e b u r d e n o f e s ta b lis h in gth a t a w itn e s s is u n a v a ila b le
. R o b er ts , 448 U
. S. at 74. 4 T h e m easu res t ak en by t h e govern m en t i n t h i s case do not consti t u t e “ good fai t h ” or “ reasona bl e” ef f ort s t o sec u re t h e ph ysi calpresence of G aray-R am i rez att r i al
. The go ver nm entfai l ed t o m ake any c onc r et e a r r angem ent s w i t h G ar ayRam i r e z pr i o rt o hi s de po r t at i o n, a nd itde l ay e d a t t e m pt i ng t o c o nt ac thi m a bo ut
m ak i n g such arrang em en t s un t i lshort l y bef ore t ri al
. G aray-R am i rez w as not
se r ved w i t h a s ubpoena o rgiven any s or tof w ri tten n oti c e r egar di ng t he t r i al p r io rto b e in gd e p o r te d
. H e a p p e a r s to h a v e b e e n o n lyo r a llyin fo r m e dth a t h is t e s tim o n yw o u ldb e re q u ir e dif th e ca s e w e n t t o tr ia l. Cf

. Uni t e d St at e s v. Calderon L opez , 2 68 F. App’ x 27 9, 28 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 08 ) (f i ndi ng t hat a go ve r nm e nt speci alagen tm ad e a good fai t h ef f ortt o sec u re t h e presence of fou r w i t n esses attr i alsuf

f i c i entto sat i sf

y t he C onf

r ont at i on C l ause by: ( 1) i ss ui ng s ubpoenas andl e t t e r s t o e ac h wi t ne s s t r ans l at e d i nt o Spa ni s h i ndi c at i ng t he t r i alda t e a nd t h at the w i t ne s s m i ghtb e r e qui r e d t o t e s t i f y att r i alpr i o rt o t he w i t ne s s e s’ dep ort at i o n; ( 2) pr o vi di ng e xp l i c i ti ns t r uc t i o ns i n t he l e t t e r s f o ro bt ai ni ng t he
n ece s s a r yd o c u m e n ts to e n te rth e U n ite dS ta te s a n dp r o v id in ge a c h w itn e s s w ith9

t h e t raveldi st an ce t o t h e l ocal A m eri can E m bassy f rom h i s respect ive pl ace of resi den ce, al on g w i t h t h e add ress es and tel eph on e n u m bers f or the E m bassi es; ( 3) i nf o r m i ng each w i t ne s s t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntw o ul d p ayf o rt he t r i p a nd rei m bu rse t h e w i t n ess f or an y ot h er i n ci den t al t ravel n eeded f or t h e pu rpose of t e s t i f yi ng; ( 4) pr o vi di ng o ne of t he w i t ne s s e s w i t h ac o nt ac tnum be r ; ( 5) m ak i ng

“ se ver alat t em pt s t o c ont ac t” anot herone o f th e w i t nes se s i n M exi c o; and ( 6)
r e m ai ni ng i n c o nt ac tw i t h t he t w o o t h e rw i t ne s s e s a nd r e que s t i ng Si gnif i c ant P u b li c B e n e fit P a ro les inor d e r to fa cili ta te th e ir r e e n tryin to th e U n ited S ta te s); A lli e , 9 7 8 F .2 da t 1 4 0 3 , 1 4 0 7 (fin d in gth a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t t o o k re a s o n a b le
m e as ur e s t o s e c ur e t he pr esence of de po r t e d wi t ne s s e s b y: ( 1) g ivi ng t he
w i t nes se s th e o pt i on o f r em ai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es w i t h w or k per m i t s; ( 2) t el l i n g t h e w i t n esses abou tth e p aym en tof w i t n ess fees and t ravelcos t reim b u rsem en ts; ( 3 ) givin g th e w i tn ess es a s u b p o e n a an da lett er to facil i tate th e irre e n tr yin to th e U n ite dS t a te s a fte rth e ird e p o s itio n s a n dp r io rto th e ir d e p o r ta tio n ; (4 ) c a l lin gth e w itn e s s e s in th e irh o m e co u n tr y ; (5 ) p r io rto th e ir de po r t at i o n, g e t t i ng t he w i t ne s s e s ’r e pe at e d a s s ur anc e s t hatt he y w o ul d r e t ur n; ( 6) appr i si ng t he bo r deri nspec t or s of t he w i t nes se s’ex pected a rrival ; and ( 7) i ssui ng c he c ks t o b e g ive n t o t he w i t ne s s e s upo n t he i rr e e nt r y i nt o t he U n i t ed S t ates)

. Fu rt h er, this oral noti ce onl y ap pri sed G aray-R am i rez of t h e prospect th a t h e w o u ldb e r e q u ir e dt o re tu r n to te s tifyin re la tiv e lyv a g u e a n du n c e r ta in te r m s . Se e Uni t e d St at e s v . G uadi an- Salazar , 824 F
. 2d 344 , 346 –47 ( 5th C i r. 198 7) (s t at i ng t hati ns t r uc t i o ns t o w i t ne s s e s t hati n t he e ve ntt he i rt e s t i m o ny w as ne e de d, t he g o ve r nm e ntw o ul d “ m ak e pr o vi s i o ns fo ryo u t o l e ga l l y e nt e rt he U ni t e d St at e s a nd t o r e m ai n unt i lt he ca s e i s t e r m i nat e d, ” w e r e am bi guo us a nd
co n trib u te dto “v irtu a ll ya ss u r[in g] th e w itn e ss e s’ a b se n ce ”). T h e g o v e r n m e n t did n ot m a k e a n y e ff ort to con tact to G a ra y-R a m i rez to
m ake c onc r et e a r r angem ent s f orhi s at t end a n ce a t t r i alunt i lm or e t han f iveThe recor d do esnotshowth at the govern me nt delib eratelysou ght tomakeGaray- 5 Ra mirezunavail able for tri al. However, “go od faith”in the Confront ation Cl ausecontext i s an obj ective standar d th at looks to the reaso nab leness of the governme nt ’ se fforts tosecure the witness, not the subj ective intent of the respon sible government offici als. Thus, showing th at the govern m e nt act e d in go o d f aith f ro m a s ubj e ctive p er s p e ctive i s n e c e s s ary , but not 10 m on t h s af

t er hi s deposi t i on w as t ak en , m ore t h an t w o m on t h s af t er t h e di st ri ct court sett h e t ri aldate, an d on l y ei gh tday s bef ore t ri al
. Th i s l ack of vi gi l an ce on the pa rto f

t he g o ve r nm e nti s s i m i l art o t hati n G uadi an- Salazar , i n w h i ch th e g ov ern m en t m a d e n o eff ort to con tact th e w i tn ess es in th e interv en i ng m on th be f o r e t r i ala nd c o nc e de d t hati thad notm ad e a go o d fai t h e f f o r tt o pr o c ur e t he
av ai l ab i l i t y o f

dep o r t e d w i t ne s s e s fo rt r i al
. 82 4 F. 2dat346
. B y c o nt r as t , i n A lli e and Calderon L opez , in w h ic h w e fo u n dth a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t t o o k re a s o n a b le
m easu res t o s e c ur e t he pr e s e nc e o f de po r t e d wi t ne s s e s , t he g o ve r nm e ntm ad e e f f o r t s t o r e m ai n i n c o nt ac tw i t h t he w i t ne s s e s f o l l o w i ng t he i rde po r t at i o n. T h e governm en t ’ s fai l u re t o ke e p Gar ay - Ram irez i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates does
n o t, a s T ir a d o -T ir a d o a s s e r ts , per s ede m o ns t r at e al ac k o f g o o d fai t h b y t he g o v e r n m e n t. A lli e , 97 8 F
. 2 dat 14 0 7

– 0 8
. A l th ou gh “th e g ov ern m en t’ s go od fa i th ef f or t s t o a ss ure [ a w i t nes s’ s] avai l abi l i t y attr i alshoul d i ncl ude ef f or t s ai m ed at keep i n g t h e w i t n ess[] i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates, ” as keep i n g a w i t n ess i n t h e U n i t ed St at e s i s o f

t e n pr o ba bl y t he b e s tw ayt o e ns ur e t hatt he w i t ne s s w i l lb e pr e s e nt f o rt r i al , de po r t i ng a w i t ne s s m ays t i l lb e c o ns i s t e ntw i t h “ go o d fai t h” a nd “r e a s o n a b le ” e ffo r ts t o p r o c u r e t h e w itn e s s e s ’a v a ila b ilitya t t r ia l. I d. H ow ever, i n t h i s c ase, t h e govern m en t ’ s act i on s do not m eet t h at st an da rd. T h e probl em i s not t h at of

f i cer R osado fai l ed to m ak e a di l i gen tef f ortt o f i n d G aray-R am i rez o n c e h e b e g a n th e s e a r c h (in d e e d , R o s a d o a p p e a r s t o h a v e co n d u c te da fa ir ly
e xha us t ive i nve s t i ga t i o n o f hi s w he r e ab o ut s ) , b ut t hat t ho s e e f f o r t s w e r e m ad e att he l as tm i nut e a nd f o l l o w e d al o ng pe r i o d d ur i ng w hi c h t he g o ve r nm e nt ap pa rentl y m a d e n o ef f ortt o rem ai n i n contactw i t h G aray-R am i rez. 5suff

icient, to es tab li sh goo d faith for the purp os es of the un avail ab ility in quiry . See Rob erts , 4 4 8U .S

. at 7 4
. 11 A ttem p ti n g to r em a i n in co n tact w i th R a m i rez an dm a k e con crete a rra n ge m en ts
w i t h hi m t o ret u rn f

or t ri alonce t h e tri ald ate h ad b een setby the di st ri ctj u dg e, o ra tl e as ts e e ki ng t o c o nt ac thi m m o r e t han o ne w e e k p r i o rt o t r i al , a s t he go ve r nm e ntc o nc e de s i ts ho ul d ha ve do ne , w o ul d nothave r e qui r e d s i gnif i c ant govern m en tres ou rces , an d i n factm i gh tha ve saved th e g o v ernm en tf rom hav i ng t o c o nduc ta m o r e e xha us t ive s e ar c h a s t he t r i alda t e a ppr o ac he d. The fai l u re t o m ak e s uc h m i ni m ale f f o r t s de m o ns t r at e s a l ac k o f g o o d fai t h o n t he pa rtof t h e governm en t , w i t h t h e co n se q u e n ce t h at G aray-R am i rez w as not

“ u n ava i l able” f

or C on f rontat i on C l au se pu rposes. B. Pri orO ppo r t uni t y t o Cr os s Exam i ne T i rado-Ti rado assert s t h at h e d i d n otha ve t h e opp ort u n i t y t o cr oss exam i ne G ar ay- R am i r ez r egar di ng s t at em ent s m ade t he w ee k bef or e t r i alby G ar ay - Ram i r e z ’ s br o t he r , F e l i c i ano , t o of f i c e rRos ad o r e ga r di ng Fel i c i ano ’ s a nd ot h er fam i l y m em bers’in vol vem en ti n sm u ggl i n g operati on s. Feli ci an o st ated t hathe pa i d f

o rG ar ay - Ram i r e z ’ s bus t i c ke tt o J uar e z a nd t hatt he i rb r o t he r - i nl aw C h u y w as i n vol vedi n t h e pl an to b ri n g G aray-R am i rez i n t o t h e U n i t ed S ta te s . T ir a d o -T ir a d o a r g u e s th a t G a r a y -R a m ir e z ’ s d e s ir e to p r o te c t h is fa m ily fr o m cr im in a l p r o s e c u tio n g a v e h im a n in c e n tiv e t o lie a b o u t T ir a d o -T ir a d o ’ s ro le i n the sm u gg l i n g o p era ti on , an dtha t he w a s p reju d i ced byn ot be in ga b l e to
c r o s s -e x a m in e G a r a y -R a m ir e z a b o u t F e lic ia n o ’ s s ta te m e n ts
. A l t h ou gh T i rado-Ti rado w as no t a bl e t o cr oss- exam i n e G aray-R am i rez concerni n g t h e speci f i c s t atem en t s m ad e t h e w e e k b ef ore t ri alby F el i ci an o, G a r a y -R a m ir e z te s tifie d d u r in g h is d e p o s itio n th a t h is b r o th e r w a s re s p o n s ib le f or arr an gi n g h i s t ri p i n t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates an d that oth er fam i l y m em bers12

w e r e i nvo lve d i n t he pl an. Fe l i c i ano ’ s s t at e m e nt s d i d notne w l y r ai s e t he p rosp ect th a t G a ra y-R a m i rez ’ s fa m i l y m em b e r s w ere i n vo lve di n the plan to br i ng G ar ay- R am i rez i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es . Fel i c i ano s t at ed t hathe had pl ayed a m or e m i norr ol e i n t he pl an t han G ar ay- R am i r ez had t es t i f i ed, and t hat G a ra y-R a m irez ’ s br oth er-i n -l a w , C h u y, ha dm a d e a l lof th e a rra n ge m en ts t o b r in gG a r a y -R a m ir e z in to t h e U n ite dS ta te s . T h is n e w e v id e n c e co n c e r n e do n ly t he r el at ive ext entof ea c h fam i l y m em ber ’ s i nvolvem ent
. Ti r ado- Ti r ado had an
o pp ort u n i t y t o cr oss- exam i n e G aray-R am i rez abo uthi s f am ily’ s i nvo lve m e nta nd
e x p lo r e th e p o s s ib i l i t yt h a tG a r a y - R a m i r e z t e s t i f i e dfa l s e l yin o r d e rt o p r o t e c th is fa m ily
. S ee Calderon–L opez , 268 F. A pp’ x at289–90 (rejec t i ng ar gum entt hat defenda n t s di d n otha ve an opp ort u n i t y t o cr oss- exam i n e a dep ort ed w i t n esses o n t he is sue o f

ho s t ag e t ak i ng dur i ng a vi de o t ap e d d e po s i t i o n when t he go ver n m en t p ro vi de d no t i c e o n t he da y o f t he de po s i t i o n t hatas upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e ntw o ul d b e f i l e d t hat m i ghti nc l ude t hatc har ge b e c aus e “ t he d e fe n d a n t s w e r e n o n e t h e le s s a b le to e v a lu a t e to w h a te x t e n te a c h d e p o n e n t ’s t e s t i m o ny w o ul d i m pl i c at e t he m w i t h re ga r d t o a pot e nt i alho s t ag e t ak i ng c o unt
a n dcr o ss -ex a m in e ea ch w itn e ss on th a t issu e ”). The ad m i s s i o n o f

G ar ay - Ram i r e z ’ s v i de o t ap ed d e po s i t i o n v i o l at e d t he Conf r o nt ati o n Cl aus e b ecau se G aray-R am i rez w as not “unav ail ab l e ” f o rt r i al , b ut
n otbecau se Tir ad o- T i rado d i d n oth a v e a fu llan d fai r opportun i t y t o cr oss exam i n e G aray-R am i rez. IV . W h eth er th e E rro r W a s H a rm l ess Adefen da n tconvi ct ed on t h e basi s of evi den ce i n t rodu ced i n vi ol ati on of t he C onf

r ont at i on C l ause i s ent i t l ed t o a n ew tr i alu nl es s t he adm i ss i on of t hat
e v id e n c e co n s tit u te s h a r m le s s e r r o r , m e a n in gth a t t h e r e is n o re a s o n a b le po s s ibi l i t y t hatt he i m pr o pe r l y ad m i t t e d e vi de nc e m i ght hav e c o nt r ibut e d t o t he
c o n v ic tio n . A l vara do

- V aldez , 5 21 F. 3da t3 41 (c i t i ngCh a p m a n v. Ca lif

o rn ia , 38613

U
. S. 1 8, 2 4 ( 19 67 ) )

. The g o ve r nm e nt be ar s t he b ur de n o f e s t ab l i s hi ng t hatt he
e r r o ris h a r m le s s b e y o n da r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. I d. ( c i t i ng Uni t e d St at e s v . Akpa n , 4 0 7 F .3d 3 6 0 , 3 7 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 )). I n t hi s c as e , Ti r ad o - Ti r ado w as co nvi c t e d o f e nc o ur ag i ng andi nduc i ng G aray-R am i rez t o enter t h e U n i t ed S t ates w i t h kn ow l e d g e o r i n rec kles s d isreg a rd of th e fa ct th a t su ch en try w a s u n l a w ful u n d er 8 U
. S

. C . § 132 4( a) ( 1) (A)

. T i rado-Ti rado does n otd i spu t e tha th e p i cked up G aray-R am i rez i n M e xi c o and at t e m pt e d t o dr ive hi m i nt o t he U ni t e d St at e s , b utTi r ad o - Ti r ad o c ont ends t hathe di d notknow , orac ti n re c kl es s di sr egar d of, t he fac tt hat G a ra y-R a m i rez w a s n ot l eg a l l y p erm i tted to en ter th e U n ite dS tates. In i ts cl osi n g argu m en t , t h e governm en targu ed that t h e j u ry cou l d i n fer t h at Ti radoTi r ado knew , orac t ed i n r ec kl es s di sr egar d of, t he fac tt hatG ar ay- R am i r ez w as no tl e ga l l y pe r m i t t e d t o e nt e rt he U ni t e d St at e s be c aus e : ( 1) T i r ad o - Ti r ad o a nd G ar ay- R a m i rez appear ed nervous w hen t hey w er e s t opped att he bo r der ; ( 2) Tir ado- Ti r ado l i ed ab outG ar ay- R am i r ez be i ng hi s l ongt i m e f r i end; and ( 3) Ti r ad o - Ti r ad o pi c ke d up G ar ay - Ram i rez at apr e vi o us l y de s i gna t e d m e e t i ng pl ac e a nd d r o ve di r e c t l y t o t he bo r de r af t e r pi c ki ng up Gar ay - Ram i r e z w i t ho ut any di sc uss i on, i ndi c at i ng t hatTi r ado- Ti r ado had pr i or k n ow l edge of t he pl an t o b r in gG a r a y -R a m ir e z in t o th e U n it e dS t a t e s i l le g a ll y . G a r a y -R a m ir e z ’s t est i m on y w as t h e on l y evi den ce that T i rado-Ti rado l i ed ab ou tG aray-R am i rez bei n g hi s l ongt i m e f

r i end and t hatTi r ado- Ti r ado pi c ked up G ar ay- R am i r ez at a previ ou sl y desi gn ated m eet i n g pl ace an d d rove di rec tlyto th e border af t er pi c ki ng up G ar ay- R am i r ez w i t houtany di sc uss i on. I n l i ghtof t he e m phasi s t hat t h e governm en tpl aced on t h i s evi den ce t o show t h at Ti rado-Tira d o k n ew , or a c te din re c k le s s d is r e g a r d o f, t h e fa c t t h a t G a r a y -R a m ir e z w a s n o t le g a lly p e r m itt e dto e n te rth e U n ite dS ta te s , th e r e is a re a s o n a b le p o s s ib ilityth a t it
m ig h t h a v e co n tr ib u te dto T ir a d o -T ir a d o ’ s co n v ic tio n . S ee A l vara d o- V aldez , 52114

F
. 3d at 341 (f

i n di n g t h at adm i ssi on of t est i m on y w as n oth arm l ess errorbecau se o f “ t he gover nm e nt ’ s i ns i s t e ntr e l i anc e o n t he t e s t i m o ny i n i t s c l o s i ng argu m en t” )

. A s a resul t , the i n t rodu ct i on of G aray-R am i rez’ s test i m on y w as not h arm l ess error . T h e ju d g m e n t is VA C A T E D , a n dth is m a tt e ris R E M A N D E D fo rn e w tr ia l.