United States v. Luis Hernandez-Meza
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12756
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hernandez-Meza was charged with illegal reentry and falsely claiming U.S. citizenship after plea negotiations collapsed.
- He moved to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act; the district court denied the motion.
- Hernandez-Meza’s defense sought to cast doubt on alienage based on derivative citizenship if a parent naturalized before he turned 18; the law governing derivative citizenship changed in 2001 but is not retroactive.
- During trial, the government moved to reopen to introduce the mother’s naturalization certificate, contrary to defense objections, after Hernandez-Meza had proffered derivative citizenship as a defense.
- The district court permitted reopening to introduce the certificate, labeling Hernandez-Meza’s defense as a surprise; the jury later convicted him of illegal reentry.
- The government did not disclose the certificate during discovery, and the certificate was not produced in time for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act timing and exclusions | Government argues two continuances fall under §3161(h)(1) as proceeding-related delays. | Clock ran out because no valid exclusion or notification of agreement occurred; reopening cannot save timing. | District court erred; conviction vacated and remanded for STA remedies. |
| Authority and abuse in reopening after close of proofs | Reopening was permissible to cure an evidentiary gap related to derivative citizenship. | Reopening was untimely and unsupported by the record; it prejudiced the defense and misstated the record. | Abuse of discretion; vacate and remand for evidentiary hearing on willfulness and sanctions; possible dismissal or prejudice remedy. |
| Discovery and Rule 16 disclosure of material to defense | Certificate was not disclosed but could have been used to rebut derivative citizenship; late disclosure acceptable for rebuttal. | Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) required disclosure of material to prepare the defense; failure to disclose was improper and prejudicial. | Rule 16 was violated; remand for consideration of willfulness and sanctions; possible dismissal of the illegal reentry count. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alvarez-Perez, 629 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2010) (time excluded for plea discussions subject to limits)
- United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1993) (prosecutor on appeal cannot repeat trial-time arguments)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (need for a reasoned record when reopening evidence)
- United States v. Lopez-Espindola, 632 F.2d 107 (9th Cir. 1980) (broad interpretation of 'other proceedings' under STA)
- Bloate v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1345 (Supreme Court 2010) (controls on interpreting broad statutory language)
- United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (materiality under Rule 16 includes information that could alter defense)
- United States v. Sandoval-Gonzalez, 642 F.3d 717 (9th Cir. 2011) (alienage element and derivative citizenship considerations)
- United States v. Lewis, 349 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (consideration of appropriate sanctions under STA)
- United States v. Elllis, 356 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2004) (need to preserve appearance of justice; reassignment when prejudicial)