United States v. Jasso, 21-40790

Background

Rolando Jasso was charged with illegal reentry after removal; the indictment alleged he was a native and citizen of Mexico, removed in 1999, and found in Texas in 2020.
The Government introduced a Mexican birth certificate from Jasso’s A-file issued in 1978 (seven years after his 1971 birth); Jasso claimed he was born in Los Arrieros, Texas in 1971.
Defense moved in limine to exclude the Mexican birth certificate and its certified English translation as unauthenticated and hearsay, arguing the certificate was prepared years after the birth and therefore unreliable.
The district court admitted the certificate under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(9) (public record of vital statistics); trial evidence also included prior statements by Jasso asserting Mexican birth/citizenship and immigration records; defense presented testimony from Jasso’s mother that he was born in Texas.
The jury convicted Jasso; district court sentenced him to time served and three years’ supervised release; Jasso appealed challenging admissibility/authentication of the certificate and the district court’s refusal to give his proposed jury instruction about the Government’s burden to prove non-U.S. birth.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding any evidentiary error in admitting the certificate was harmless and that the authenticity objection was preserved for appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under hearsay exceptions	The Mexican birth certificate is a public record of vital statistics (Fed. R. Evid. 803(9)) and thus admissible.	The certificate is hearsay and inadmissible because it was not contemporaneous and was prepared years after birth.	Court admitted under 803(9) at trial; on appeal did not decide definitively but found any erroneous admission harmless.
Authentication of the foreign birth certificate	The certificate is authenticated by its presence in Jasso’s A-file and testimony from USCIS custodian; alternatively could be self-authenticated under Rule 902.	The Government failed to authenticate the foreign public document under Rules 901/902 and did not produce required official certifications.	Court found authentication disputed but ruled the objection preserved; questioned sufficiency of methods but declined reversal because error was harmless.
Trustworthiness given delayed issuance (7 years after birth)	The certificate’s content is corroborated by other records and Jasso’s prior statements claiming Mexican birth.	The seven-year delay renders the certificate inherently untrustworthy and undermines reliability.	Court acknowledged timing raised concerns about trustworthiness but held any error in admitting it was harmless in light of other evidence.
Requested jury instruction on burden to prove non-U.S. birth	Government objected; argued standard jury instructions sufficient.	Jasso asked for instruction emphasizing Government’s burden to prove he was not born in the U.S.; court refused to give the specific burden language.	Court refused the proposed instruction but held the refusal harmless.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; authentication standard not burdensome)
United States v. Okulaja, 21 F.4th 338 (5th Cir. 2021) (harmless-error standard: reversal requires reasonable possibility that improperly admitted evidence contributed to conviction)
United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2010) (requirements for preserving evidentiary objections)
United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2009) (written pretrial objections may preserve issues even if not renewed on record)
United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. 2003) (preservation of objections raised in writing)
United States v. Montemayor, 712 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1983) (authenticating Mexican birth certificate via consular certification)
United States v. Ceballos, 789 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2015) (authentication challenges generally affect weight, not admissibility)
United States v. Barlow, 568 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2009) (ultimate responsibility for determining authenticity rests with the jury)