Opinion ID: 202779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction on Lawfulness of Deportation

Text: 43 We review de novo a properly preserved objection to the failure to give a requested jury instruction. United States v. Buttrick, 432 F.3d 373, 376 (1st Cir.2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2861, 165 L.Ed.2d 895 (2006). 44 Defense counsel objected to the lack of an instruction stating that the government had the burden of proving that the deportation was a lawful deportation. The district court overruled the objection, noting that the Supreme Court had decided in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987), that lawfulness of deportation was not an element of the offense defined at 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Id. at 834-37, 107 S.Ct. 2148. 45 The district court did instruct the jury that there were four elements of the crime, each of which the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that Earle was an alien at the time alleged in the indictment, (2) that he had previously been deported from the United States, (3) that he was later found to be in the United States, and (4) that he had not received express consent from either the Attorney General or the Secretary of DHS to reenter the United States. On the second element, the district court explained that the Government needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the deportation proceeding actually occurred and that the end result was that the defendant was, in fact, deported. 46 On appeal, Earle concedes that the Supreme Court has previously held that lawfulness of deportation is not an element of § 1326. He argues, however, that subsequent Supreme Court cases such as Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), require the issue of lawfulness to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi does not, however, require a jury to be instructed that the government bears the burden of proving something that is not an element of a crime. Id. at 477, 120 S.Ct. 2348. 47 The defendant's argument is without merit. In an illegal reentry prosecution, the lawfulness of deportation simply is not an element of the offense. Earle was not entitled to a jury instruction on the lawfulness of deportation.