Court Opinion

ID: 9478080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:39:46.15503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:13.919071
License: Public Domain

WIGGINS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Franke Eugenio Martinez lied to Immigration officials at the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry as he sought admission to the United States from Mexico. He intentionally withheld from the Border Officials his true name because of the existence of an outstanding warrant for his arrest under that name. Instead, he represented himself to be “Jose Reynoso Diaz,” a name he adopted and had been using in Mexico during his flight from the United States charges against him.
The defendant repeated this deception when he was brought before the federal magistrate to determine his eligibility for counsel on minor immigration charges filed against him. When his true identity later became known, the present criminal action was filed. It charged the defendant with making a false statement to government agents, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and making a false statement concerning his identity to a magistrate, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1623.
Following a jury trial, he was acquitted on the Section 1001 charge, but convicted on the Section 1623 complaint.
As the majority appropriately points out, the crux of this case on appeal is the defendant’s contention that his use of the name “Diaz” was not material. The majority agrees that the use of the Diaz name was not material on the issue of the financial ability of the defendant to pay for private counsel.
I regard this to be a startling conclusion that simply does not comport with common sense. Accordingly, I must dissent.
The issue before the magistrate was to determine the ability of the person before him to afford private counsel. That person had two identities: an American citizen who was an attorney admitted to practice in Colorado; and an impoverished Mexican citizen. The defendant chose to reveal his Mexican identity and to withhold his American identity. Had the defendant told the truth, there is little doubt that the magistrate would have been on notice to make further inquiry concerning the financial circumstances of Franke Eugenio Martinez.
I do not regard this case as presenting a particularly close question concerning the tendency of the falsehood to hamper the investigation of the magistrate. United States v. Anfield, 539 F.2d 674, 678 (9th Cir.1976).
I would affirm the conviction.