United States v. Lidia Rodriguez
880 F.3d 1151
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Rodriguez, a Rio Rico, AZ resident, drove a passenger picked up in Nogales who presented a B1/B2 border crossing card in another name; Border Patrol detained both at an I-19 checkpoint after the passenger admitted the card did not belong to him.
- The passenger (Enrique Martinez-Arguelles) gave a videotaped deposition before deportation; the prosecutor later played that deposition at Rodriguez’s trials over her objection.
- Rodriguez was tried multiple times; at the second trial (the appeal at issue) she did not testify but presented medical-expert testimony about visual impairments; the jury was instructed on guilt based on either knowledge or “reckless disregard.”
- The district court admitted evidence of Rodriguez’s 2005 federal conviction for conspiracy to commit fraud and misuse of immigration documents under Rule 404(b) to prove knowledge.
- The jury convicted Rodriguez of transporting an illegal alien for financial gain; she was sentenced and appealed, challenging the recklessness instruction, admission of the videotaped deposition (unavailability/confrontation), and the prior-conviction evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction defining “reckless disregard” | Instruction failed to require subjective awareness of risk; it allowed conviction for mere negligence | Error not preserved; instruction was correct or harmless | Reversed: instruction misstated law—recklessness requires subjective awareness of the risk (Farmer) and the given instruction was misleading; error preserved and not harmlessly forfeited by gov’t |
| Admission of passenger’s videotaped deposition (unavailability/Confrontation Clause) | Prosecutor failed to make good-faith efforts to secure witness; deposition admission violated Confrontation Clause | Prosecutor made reasonable efforts while respecting attorney-client relationship | Reversed: government did not take reasonable steps (had address but didn’t use it; relied on counsel who lacked client contact); admission violated Confrontation Clause |
| Admission of prior 2005 conviction under Rule 404(b) | Prior offense was too dissimilar and unduly prejudicial | Prior conviction was probative of knowledge that aliens use false documents; admissible and limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | Affirmed: prior conviction was sufficiently similar to show knowledge and not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Cumulative / other trial errors (Juror dismissal, Allen charge, sentencing enhancement) | Combined errors deprived her of a fair trial | Errors did not warrant reversal independently | Not addressed in depth: reversal required on other grounds; some issues unlikely to recur on retrial and were therefore not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Sup. Ct.) (recklessness requires subjective awareness of risk)
- Black v. United States, 561 U.S. 465 (Sup. Ct.) (preserving objections to jury instructions under Fed. R. Crim. P. 30)
- Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (Sup. Ct.) (discussing recklessness and awareness requirement)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 790 F.3d 951 (9th Cir.) (applying Farmer/Model Penal Code recklessness standard)
- United States v. Jackson, 513 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (good-faith efforts required to locate witnesses for Confrontation Clause)
- United States v. Pena-Gutierrez, 222 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (government’s failure to contact known-address witness in Mexico unreasonable)
- United States v. Uresti-Hernandez, 968 F.2d 1042 (10th Cir.) (earlier formulation of reckless-disregard instruction relied on by some circuits)
- United States v. Zlatogur, 271 F.3d 1025 (11th Cir.) (adopting Tenth Circuit formulation of reckless-disregard instruction)
- Gonzalez-Flores v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.) (discussing waiver and harmless-error considerations)