United States v. Juan Valderama-Mancilla
20-50060
| 9th Cir. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Juan Valderama-Mancilla was convicted after a jury trial of attempted illegal entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1)) and attempted illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)).
- At trial Border Patrol Agent Schwartz described a pre-arrest encounter in which Valderama did not tell Schwartz he had entered to receive eye surgery; the prosecutor referenced that silence.
- The prosecution also introduced and commented on Valderama’s history of prior removals/returns (including evidence of about fifteen voluntary returns).
- Valderama moved under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) to dismiss the attempted reentry charge, arguing the underlying 1998 removal order was invalid; the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal Valderama argued (1) prosecutor’s remarks violated his Fifth Amendment right by referring to post-arrest silence, (2) improper propensity inferences from prior removals, (3) cumulative error, and (4) the § 1326(d) dismissal should have been granted because the 1998 order was invalid. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor improperly commented on Valderama's post-arrest silence (Fifth Amendment/Doyle) | Prosecutor referenced Valderama's silence about entering for surgery and thereby violated his post-arrest silence rights | References were to pre-arrest silence (Schwartz encounter); pre-arrest silence is admissible; no post-arrest interaction in record | No error — comments concerned pre-arrest silence (permissible); any Doyle error would be harmless |
| Whether prosecutor improperly urged propensity inference from prior removals (Rule 404(b)) | Prior removals were used to show bad character/propensity to reenter illegally | Prior removals were either an element of offense or probative of intent/free-from-restraint; thus admissible | No plain error — prior removals were admissible and not prejudicial to substantial rights |
| Whether cumulative error required reversal | Combined alleged errors deprived Valderama of a fair trial | Errors (if any) were either not errors or harmless and did not cumulatively undermine verdict | No — reversal for cumulative error not warranted |
| Whether § 1326(d) dismissal was required because 1998 removal order was invalid | Under §1326(d), removal order invalidity bars prosecution for reentry; Valderama argued due-process defects in 1998 order | Even assuming defects, Valderama cannot show prejudice or that IJ would have exercised discretion in his favor given long immigration history | Denied — Valderama failed to show prejudice or that the 1998 order was fundamentally unfair |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baker, 999 F.2d 412 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing pre-arrest vs. post-arrest silence admissibility)
- United States v. Beckman, 298 F.3d 788 (9th Cir.) (pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence admissible as evidence)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (post-arrest Miranda silence generally protected)
- United States v. Bushyhead, 270 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.) (harmless-error standard for Doyle claims)
- United States v. Leos-Maldonado, 302 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir.) (prior removals probative of intent/free-from-restraint)
- United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.) (prior removals can be essential to charged offense)
- United States v. Alcantara-Castillo, 788 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.) (plain-error review for admission of removals evidence)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 804 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.) (prejudice requirement under § 1326(d) and IJ discretion analysis)