Opinion ID: 426379
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Denial of the Jurisdictional Motions

Text: 15 Prior to holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court, after hearing argument and considering the above events as described in the parties' papers, denied defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that (1) when first observed by the Coast Guard, the RICARDO was flying no flag and was headed toward the United States mainland; (2) the RICARDO changed course away from the mainland and hoisted a Venezuelan flag as the DUANE neared; (3) the RICARDO was found to be carrying flags of several other states; and (4) although the RICARDO claimed Venezuelan nationality, its registration with that country had expired more than two years before the seizure occurred. On the basis of these findings, the court ruled that the RICARDO was a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because at the very least, ... when seized, [it] was a vessel 'assimilated to a stateless vessel,' and at best, ... was a vessel without nationality. (Sept. 30, 1982 Transcript (9/30 Tr.) at 30.) 16 For its finding that the RICARDO's registration had expired, the court initially relied on the government's assertion in its brief that it had obtained a certificate from the Venezuelan Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Bureau of Maritime Transportation and Traffic (the Certificate), stating that the RICARDO had been registered in Venezuela, but that the registration had expired as of May 21, 1980, and no record of a renewal or reinstatement could be found. Some weeks later, at the evidentiary hearing on defendants' motions to suppress, the government offered in evidence the Venezuelan Certificate itself. The Certificate, which is set out in full in the margin, 5 stated in part that the RICARDO had been registered in Venezuela; that it had evidently sailed clandestinely from a Venezuelan port and had last been heard from on May 21, 1979; and that failing to have any further news from it since that date, May 21, 1979, the Maritime Authority has found grounds for the expiration of its registration.... The Certificate concluded as follows: 17 Therefore, the motor boat Ricardo, originally registered in the Harbor Master's Office of Las Piedras, in view of the expiration of its registration, as of May 21, 1980, could not invoke the Venezuelan nationality to protect its status under any circumstance, particularly in situations involving a crime or infraction. 18 Reinstatement to its status of Venezuelan vessel after the said date (May 21, 1980) would have required the renewal of its documents, after justifying its absence and receiving a favorable decision from the Venezuelan authorities, something that did not ever take place. 19 Defendants objected to the introduction of the Certificate under Fed.R.Evid. 803(10), which permits receipt of an appropriate certification of the absence of a public record; their argument was cut short, however, by the government's disclaimer of reliance on Rule 803(10) and its invocation instead of Rule 803(8), which governs existing public records. The court agreed that the Certificate did not show an absence of a record, and it admitted the document into evidence over defendants' objections that admission was not authorized by Rule 803(8) and would violate their rights of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. 20 In a ruling announced on October 20, 1982, the court stated that it had considered the Venezuelan Certificate and confirmed its September 30, 1982 finding that the RICARDO was a stateless vessel at the time of its seizure. Accordingly, the court adhered to its decision denying defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.