United States v. Juan Jara-Favela
686 F.3d 289
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Jara-Favela, a deported Mexican citizen, attempted to reenter the United States at the Gateway to the Americas Port of Entry near Laredo, Texas.
- He approached soft secondary inspection, spoke to CBP officer Escobedo, showed a Mexican passport with an expired ADIT stamp, and asked about his residency status.
- After inconsistencies in his statements, he was escorted to secondary and then hard secondary for interrogation; video confirmed he approached from the Mexican side.
- During interrogation, Jara-Favela claimed he came from Nuevo Laredo/Mexico and later from the north, creating conflicting statements to CBP officers.
- A grand jury charged him with attempted illegal reentry (Count 1) and later with false statements (Count 3); Count 2 was dismissed, and the case proceeded on Counts 1 and 3.
- The district court instructed the jury on materiality and suggested that ‘north’ could be equated with Laredo, Texas, prompting objections from Jara-Favela.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court impermissibly directed a verdict via instructions | Jara-Favela | Government | No reversible error; instructions viewed in totality did not prejudice |
| Whether the court constructively amended Count 3 by its instructions | Jara-Favela | Government | No constructive amendment; variance but not reversible error |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Counts 1 and 3 | Jara-Favela | Government | Substantial evidence supported both convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1933) (judge may comment on evidence with safeguards against bias)
- Lance v. United States, 853 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir. 1988) (court may comment on evidence but not direct verdict; curative instructions matter)
- Johnson v. United States, 718 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1983) (judicial comments must not prejudice the defendant; totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Skinner, 437 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1971) (district court may comment on evidence but not direct verdict)
- United States v. Phillips, 477 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2007) (constructive amendment vs. variance; evaluate in context)
- United States v. Nunez, 180 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 1999) (variance must prejudice substantial rights; not reversible here)