United States v. Joseph Evans, Sr.
728 F.3d 953
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Evans obtained a delayed Idaho birth certificate in 2010 and used it to apply for a U.S. passport; the certificate stated he was born on the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho.
- Federal authorities investigated discrepancies; fingerprint and photo matches connected Evans to an A-file for "Ramon Ceniceros-Mora," a person previously deported and convicted for false-birth-certificate possession and §1326.
- The government moved pretrial to exclude the Idaho birth certificate; after a Rule 104 hearing at which only the government presented witnesses, the district court found the certificate "substantively fraudulent," excluded it under Rules 104(a) and 403, and later convicted Evans at trial on alienage and fraud-related counts.
- Evans appealed, arguing exclusion violated his Fifth Amendment right to present a defense and his Sixth Amendment right to have a jury decide elements of the offense.
- The Ninth Circuit held the district court erred in excluding the birth certificate, concluding the court improperly weighed credibility and usurped the jury’s factfinding role; exclusion violated Evans’s due-process right and was not harmless, so the convictions were vacated and remanded for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 104(a) authorizes a trial judge to exclude evidence on a substantive credibility basis | Court may perform threshold review and exclude illegitimate/fraudulent evidence before jury | Rule 104(a) only decides preliminary conditions for applying other rules; cannot itself provide substantive basis to exclude | Rule 104(a) does not permit exclusion of evidence on substantive credibility grounds without relying on another rule or Constitutional provision; district court exceeded authority |
| Whether the delayed birth certificate was relevant under Rule 401/402 | Govt: certificate irrelevant if not "substantively genuine" despite facial validity | Evans: certificate was an official state record and thus relevant; credibility is for jury | Certificate was relevant; its issuance by Idaho made it consequential to citizenship and therefore admissible subject to other rules |
| Whether Rule 104(b)/403 allowed exclusion because the court found the certificate not credible | Govt: court properly found certificate obtained by fraud and thus inadmissible and prejudicial | Evans: a judge may not weigh credibility under 104(b) or 403; probative value must be assessed assuming the evidence is true and credibility left to jury | Court erred: under 104(b) judge may not weigh credibility to preclude admission; under 403 judge must assess probative value assuming evidence is true and cannot exclude solely for lack of believability |
| Whether exclusion of the certificate violated defendant's constitutional right to present a defense and, if so, whether error was harmless | Govt: abundant forensic and testimonial evidence of alienage made any error harmless | Evans: exclusion removed his primary evidence on the central element (citizenship), depriving him of meaningful defense | Exclusion violated due-process right to present a defense because the certificate was the main evidence on a critical element; error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (trial judge may not weigh credibility under Rule 104(b); court examines whether jury could reasonably find conditional fact)
- Blake v. Pellegrino, 329 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2003) (trial judge may not exclude evidence because judge doubts its persuasiveness; credibility is for the jury)
- Ballou v. Henri Studios, Inc., 656 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1981) (exclusion based on judge’s credibility choice is improper; probative value must be assessed as if evidence were true)
- Rainey v. Conerly, 973 F.2d 321 (4th Cir. 1992) (judge cannot exclude relevant evidence for being "not reliable"; credibility issues belong to jury)
- United States v. Pineda-Doval, 614 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (exclusion of evidence necessary to refute a critical prosecution element can violate right to present a defense)
- United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2010) (constitutional error where exclusion removed the only evidence supporting key defense)
- United States v. Wiggan, 700 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2012) (probative-value analysis should consider availability of other evidence on the point)