Background

• Esparza was convicted of importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 based on his alleged knowledge of drugs in a car he drove to a port of entry.
• The registered owner of the seized car was Diana Hernandez; she did not testify at trial.
• Hernandez’s statements that she sold the car to Esparza were included in two hearsay documents (DMV Notice of Transfer/Release of Liability and DMV Printout).
• The government used these documents to prove Esparza owned the car and thus knew of the drugs, despite Esparza claiming he borrowed the car.
• Esparza challenged the documents as hearsay and Confrontation Clause violations; the district court admitted them as non-testimonial under various exceptions, and the government elected not to call Hernandez.
• The district court conviction was vacated and remanded after it was concluded Hernandez’s statements were testimonial and their admission violated the Confrontation Clause, and the error was not harmless.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements require confrontation unless unavailable with prior cross-examination)
• Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (911-call statements not testimonial when ongoing emergency apparent)
• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial and require confrontation)
• United States v. Morales, 720 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2013) (public records not always testimonial in DHS contexts)
• United States v. Berry, 683 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) (Social Security application documents not testimonial in certain prosecutions)
• United States v. Marguet-Pillado, 560 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2009) (considerations of testimonial nature of declarants' statements)
• United States v. Bustamante, 687 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error evaluation for Confrontation Clause violations)
• United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1986) (general framework for evaluating hearsay exceptions and confrontation)