United States v. Mariano Anguiano-Morfin
713 F.3d 1208
9th Cir.2013Background
- Anguiano-Morfin, a former lawful permanent resident, was removed to Mexico in 2010.
- He approached a U.S. port of entry and claimed he was a U.S. citizen, triggering arrest.
- He was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 911 for making a false claim of citizenship.
- His sole trial defense was that a delusion caused him to genuinely believe he was a citizen, negating willfulness.
- The jury convicted and the district court denied his motion for a new trial; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of jury instructions on willfulness | Anguiano argued the instruction should require knowledge of falsity. | Government argued the given instructions adequately stated elements and defense theory. | Instructions were adequate as a whole; knowledge is implied and defense theory conveyed. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during expert cross-examination | Anguiano contends cross-exam improperly attacked the expert's veracity. | Government contends no plain error and cross-examination was permissible. | No plain error; conduct did not affect substantial rights or trial fairness. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011) (instructions must be supported by law and have some foundation in the evidence)
- United States v. Hayes, 794 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court broad discretion in formulating instructions)
- United States v. Feingold, 454 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2006) (defense theory effectively conveyed when instructions address key issues)
- United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of § 911 include willful misrepresentation to one with good reason to inquire)
- In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 534 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2008) (cross-examination of expert on facts or data underlying opinion may be proper)
- United States v. De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 2003) (plain error standard requires clear or obvious error)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review for prosecutorial misconduct)