United States v. Marguet-Pillado
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16623
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Marguet-Pillado was born in Mexico in 1968; birth certificate lists Michael Marguet as father, but Michael was his stepfather, not biological father.
- He entered the United States in 1973 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1974; prior to these events, his birth and parentage were disputed.
- He was convicted in California of burglary (1994) and attempted murder (1995); released from custody in 2002.
- In 2006, he was removed from the United States; during removal proceedings he claimed derivative citizenship from his stepfather, which the immigration judge rejected.
- He reentered the United States without inspection and was later indicted in 2006 for being a removed alien found in the United States; the first trial was by the district court without a jury and the second was by jury after remand.
- On remand, the government sought to preclude derivative citizenship arguments; Marguet-Pillado sought a jury instruction on alienage and derivative citizenship, which the district court denied as precluded by law of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying a derivative citizenship instruction. | Marguet-Pillado argues the instruction is lawfully accurate and has foundation in evidence. | Government argues law of the case foreclosed derivative citizenship argument and the instruction would misstate burden. | District court erred; instruction required and trial remanded for new trial. |
| Whether law of the case prevented re-litigating alienage in the second trial. | Law of the case should not bar a jury determination of all elements beyond reasonable doubt. | Law of the case precluded derivative citizenship theory from being argued or instructed. | Law of the case could not preclude the derivative citizenship theory where it is legally sound and has foundation in evidence. |
| Whether alienage is an element of § 1326 and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the government at trial. | Government must prove alienage beyond a reasonable doubt; instruction helps ensure proper burden allocation. | Derivation of citizenship is settled against Marguet-Pillado; no instruction needed. | Alienage is an element; government must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sandoval-Gonzalez, 642 F.3d 717 (9th Cir. 2011) (alienage element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Bello-Bahena, 411 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2005) (right to jury instructions; law and foundation in evidence)
- United States v. Meza-Soria, 935 F.2d 166 (9th Cir. 1991) (alienage as an element; jury must decide)
- Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1997) (law of the case should not create manifest injustice)
- United States v. Arnett, 353 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2003) (collateral estoppel cannot be used to prove elements in criminal trial)
- Sandoval-Gonzalez, 642 F.3d 717 (9th Cir. 2011) (reiteration of burden-shifting concerns in derivative citizenship)
- United States v. Jones, 248 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2001) (government must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt)