Opinion ID: 508827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Potentially Incriminating Response

Text: 25 Equihua-Juarez finally contends that had he stated his true name to Agent Spruance, he would have potentially incriminated himself because his true name would have facilitated the discovery of his prior convictions for illegal entry. 26 The exculpatory no exception applies when giving a truthful answer would have incriminated the declarant. Medina de Perez, 799 F.2d at 544. 10 An incriminating response is any disclosure that the declarant reasonably believes could be used by the government in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1656-57, 32 L.Ed.2d 212, reh'g. denied, 408 U.S. 931, 92 S.Ct. 2478, 33 L.Ed.2d 345 (1972). Moreover, the privilege against self-incrimination does not merely encompass evidence that may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951). 27 Here, Equihua-Juarez asserts that if he had given his true name to Agent Spruance, the Border Patrol, through a search of their files on Alfredo Equihua-Juarez, would have discovered his prior illegal entry convictions. Proof of a prior conviction for illegal entry is one element necessary for a felony illegal entry conviction. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325; 11 see United States v. Arambula-Alvarado, 677 F.2d at 52. Equihua-Juarez could have reasonably believed that giving his true name to Agent Spruance would have led to the discovery of his prior convictions, proof that could be used against him in a prosecution for felony illegal entry. See Kastigar 406 U.S. at 444-45, 92 S.Ct., at 1656. Thus, by giving a truthful answer, Equihua-Juarez would have furnished a link in the chain of evidence that could have led to his prosecution and conviction for felony illegal entry. See Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486, 71 S.Ct., at 818. 28 In short, Equihua-Juarez meets all five requirements of the exculpatory no exception to Sec. 1001. See Medina de Perez, 799 F.2d at 544-45. 29 The Sec. 1001 conviction is REVERSED.