1:23-cv-21388
S.D. Fla.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Emile Parker, the plaintiff, is contesting an order of removal from the U.S. based on his alleged status as a U.S. citizen by birth to a U.S. citizen father, Nick James Parker.
- The case was remanded from the Eleventh Circuit to the district court for a de novo hearing regarding Parker’s nationality claim.
- The plaintiff submitted a declaration from his mother, Sonia Antoine, stating that immigration officers said Parker should not be deported due to his father’s U.S. citizenship.
- The defendant moved to exclude Antoine’s declaration, arguing it is inadmissible hearsay not covered by any exception and lacks authentication.
- The admissibility of the declaration depends on whether any hearsay exceptions under the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rules 803(19) or 804(b)(4), apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 803(19) | Declaration reflects family history of the father's U.S. birth. | Declaration is double hearsay and not based on general family reputation but only a conversation with an immigration officer. | Declaration does not qualify under Rule 803(19); not a general family reputation. |
| Admissibility under Rule 804(b)(4) | Declaration is admissible as family history by an unavailable declarant (Antoine). | Antoine is not unavailable, and declaration contains no firsthand knowledge; not covered by exception. | Rule 804(b)(4) does not apply; Antoine lacks personal knowledge and officer’s statement is not trustworthy family history. |
| Hearsay within hearsay | Declaration is trustworthy, and close relationship gives it reliability. | Declaration is inadmissible hearsay at both levels; fails to meet hearsay exceptions. | Declaration contains double hearsay and neither level is covered by an exception. |
| Authentication | Notarization is sufficient for self-authentication under Rule 902(8). | Declaration is not properly authenticated under Rules 901 or 902(8). | Court does not reach authentication arguments; excluded as hearsay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (motions in limine standard)
- United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214 (hearsay inadmissibility unless an exception applies)
- United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (hearsay is inadmissible unless subject to exclusion or exception)
- United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851 (proponents of evidence have burden to establish hearsay exception)