Opinion ID: 3064557
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Mexican Citizenship

Text: In an attempt to prove that Carlos Marguet was not a citizen of the United States, the government submitted the Application from his immigration file (A-file) in which he applied for permanent resident status on the basis of his relationship to Michael Marguet. But Carlos Marguet was just a five-yearold boy at that time and, in fact, the document was filled out and signed by Michael Marguet. In it Michael Marguet UNITED STATES v. MARGUET-PILLADO 3669 declared that Carlos Marguet was born in Mexico and was a citizen of that country. At trial, Carlos Marguet objected to the admission of the document on the basis that it violated his confrontation rights under the Constitution,14 and that it should have been excluded in any event because it was hearsay.
[6] Carlos Marguet relies upon Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004) for his claim that his confrontation rights were violated. In Crawford, id. at 68, 124 S. Ct. at 1374, the Court determined that when an out of court testimonial statement is offered against a defendant at trial, the Sixth Amendment requires that he be given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the person who made that statement. The only exception is when the witness is not available and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id. On the other hand, when the evidence in question is nontestimonial, confrontation is not necessarily required. Id. The Court did not undertake “to spell out a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” although it did note that police interrogations and testimony before a grand jury, or at a preliminary hearing, or at trial would be within that category. Id. [7] We have been required to fill the gap and have declared that a “warrant of deportation is nontestimonial because it was not made in anticipation of litigation, and because it is simply a routine, objective, cataloging of an unambiguous factual matter.” United States v. Bahena-Cardenas, 411 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Similarly, a notation on the warrant that the alien was removed was not testimonial. Id. And we have agreed that “ ‘Crawford at least suggests that the determinative factor in determining whether a declarant bears testimony 14 U.S. Const. amend. VI. 3670 UNITED STATES v. MARGUET-PILLADO is the declarant’s awareness or expectation that his or her statements may later be used at a trial.’ ” United States v. Larson, 460 F.3d 1200, 1213 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).15 [8] In the case at hand, we follow those guideposts and determine that the Application was not testimonial. It was merely a statement of facts designed to have the government agree to receive Carlos Marguet as a permanent resident — in other words, it was just the setting out of what Michael Marguet saw as noncontroversial factual information regarding Carlos Marguet. It surely was not set forth with an eye to a trial proceeding of any kind. As it was, no criminal proceeding commenced until more than thirty years later. By then Carlos Marguet had resided in the United States for a long time, committed crimes, been removed, and then returned. Surely none of that was in Michael Marguet’s contemplation when he sought to have a little boy admitted into the United States. [9] There was no violation of the Constitution when the Application was admitted into evidence.
Carlos Marguet also asserts that the district court erred when it admitted the Application, which was in his A-file, under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). We agree. [10] No doubt the Application can be said to document the activities of a governmental agency and to document the observations of a responsible government officer to some extent. That would allow admission of the document for those 15 This opinion was vacated when the case was taken en banc. United States v. Larson, 471 F.3d 1359 (9th Cir. 2006). However, the portion cited here was then adopted in the en banc opinion. United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094, 1099 n.4 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). UNITED STATES v. MARGUET-PILLADO 3671 purposes. See Bahena-Cardenas, 411 F.3d at 1074-75; United States v. Loyola-Dominguez, 125 F.3d 1315, 1317-18 (9th Cir. 1997). However, the only part of the document truly relevant here is Michael Marguet’s hearsay statement that Carlos Marguet was born in and was a citizen of Mexico. Michael Marguet, of course, had no governmental duties whatsoever. See Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d at 999. The government’s contention that the Application is admissible under the business records exception contains the same flaw. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); Sana v. Hawaiian Cruises, Ltd., 181 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1999). In either case, there is at least one more layer of hearsay, and to be admissible there must be an exception for that layer also. See Sana, 181 F.3d at 1045; United States v. Hajda, 135 F.3d 439, 444 (7th Cir. 1998). [11] However, the government made no attempt in the district court and made no attempt in its brief to argue that the statements of Michael Marguet are admissible as a result of some other hearsay exception. Thus, the government has waived any argument to that effect, and we are constrained to find error in the admission of the statements of Michael Marguet. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999); Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996). [12] Moreover, the error was prejudicial. That is, it is more likely than not that the error affected the verdict. See Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d at 994. There can be little doubt of that. In fact, aside from the documents reflecting the previous administrative proceedings for Carlos Marguet and his removal, the Application was the only evidence admitted at trial which tended to show Carlos Marguet’s alienage. But we have made it quite clear that the removal documents alone will not suffice to prove alienage beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Sotelo, 109 F.3d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913, 921 (9th Cir. 2005). In other words, on the trial record, absent 3672 UNITED STATES v. MARGUET-PILLADO the improperly admitted hearsay, Carlos Marguet would not have suffered a conviction.16 [13] Thus, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings.