Opinion ID: 203803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutional Challenge to Jurisdiction Under the MDLEA

Text: Angulo-Hernández and Casiano-Jiménez argue that the MDLEA is unconstitutional. As best we can tell, their argument is that due process requires that the government prove a jurisdictional nexus between the defendants' criminal conduct and the United States. That argument has been rejected by this court for at least a decade. [D]ue process does not require the government to prove a nexus between a defendant's criminal conduct and the United States in a prosecution under MDLEA when the flag nation has consented to the application of United States law to the defendants. United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548, 553 (1st Cir.1999). And the MDLEA itself contains no jurisdictional nexus requirement. Bravo, 489 F.3d at 7. Here, the Coast Guard complied with the MDLEA's jurisdictional requirements by obtaining consent from the Bolivian government to enforce the laws of the United States against those onboard the Osiris II. See 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1). This was proven in court through a certificate from the U.S. State Department. See id. § 70502(c)(2) (Consent or waiver of objection by a foreign nation to the enforcement of United States law by the United States ... is proved conclusively by certification of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee.). The defendants' jurisdictional challenge is meritless. Defendants also argue on appeal that the MDLEA violates the Confrontation Clause because it allows jurisdiction under the statute to be proven conclusively through a certificate from the State Department without allowing the defendants an opportunity to cross-examine the certifying declarant. See id. § 70502(c)(2)(B). Jurisdiction under the MDLEA is not an element of the offense; it is a preliminary question[] of law to be determined solely by the trial judge, id. § 70504(a); see also Vilches-Navarrete, 523 F.3d at 20. Here, the prosecution asserted that there was jurisdiction under the MDLEA through a motion in limine, which included the State Department's certificate as an attachment. The prosecution's motion recognized that jurisdiction under the MDLEA is not an issue that should be litigated during trial or before the jury. The district court agreed and ultimately rejected, before trial, the defendants' jurisdictional challenge. Despite this ruling, defendants persisted at trial in contesting the district court's jurisdiction under the MDLEA, arguing that the State Department's certificate lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. In response, the government offered the State Department's certificate as a trial exhibit, which the district court accepted over the defendants' hearsay objection. Defendants did not object on Confrontation Clause grounds. The district court later instructed the jury that as a matter of law, ... the Motor Vessel Osiris II was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Following that instruction, defendants renewed their objection to giving the jury a copy of the State Department's certificate, presumably on the same ground of inadmissible hearsay. The district court overruled their objection. Defendants again never objected to the admission of the State Department's certificate under the Confrontation Clause. Our review of their newfound appellate claim is for plain error. United States v. Ziskind, 491 F.3d 10, 14 (1st Cir.2007). To meet the plain error standard, defendants must show: (1) the occurrence of an error; (2) that the error is obvious or clear under current law; (3) that the error affected [their] substantial rights; and (4) that it seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. There was no plain error in the admission of the State Department's certificate. To start, the certificate was relevant to the jurisdictional issue before the court. It was admissible under the hearsay exception for public records, see Fed. R.Evid. 803(8), and was self-authenticating, see Fed.R.Evid. 902(1). There was no need to publish it to the jury; defendants brought that on themselves by trying to raise the certificate as an issue at trial. We seriously doubt that defendants can mount a Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of the State Department's certificate. Any cross-examination of the certifying declarant would have been irrelevant because the State Department's certificate conclusively proved jurisdiction under the MDLEA. See 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(2)(B). For purposes of plain error review, we do not decide the Confrontation Clause question because the error alleged by defendants was not obvious or clear under current law, Ziskind, 491 F.3d at 14. Defendants have cited no case which holds that a State Department certificate is testimonial within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause. Indeed, the caselaw is to the contrary. See Pandales-Angulo v. United States, No. 01-CR-294-T-17MSS, 2006 WL 1540259, at  (M.D.Fla. May 31, 2006).