United States v. Mensah
737 F.3d 789
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Mensah (born in Ghana) held permanent resident status via a diversity visa and naturalized in Sept. 2001 under his own name; he separately applied for a diversity visa using the alias Willberforce Appiah and later used that identity to re-enter the U.S. and obtain state ID/driver's licenses.
- In 2006 Massachusetts police arrested Mensah for holding licenses in two names; officers found documents in his vehicle bearing the Appiah name.
- The government indicted Mensah under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) (unlawful procurement of naturalization), alleging he made material false statements under oath in his naturalization application/interview (violating § 1015(a)) by denying use of other names and denying he had knowingly committed an unarrested crime (predicate: an Appiah visa application constituting a false statement under § 1001).
- At trial Mensah admitted the factual backdrop but argued the government failed to prove elements including falsity, that statements were under oath, knowledge of wrongdoing, and causation for unlawful procurement; he also challenged suppression of the car-search evidence, the admission of his 2006 arrest evidence, certain jury instructions, and the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes (Batson).
- The district court denied suppression (inventory/search-incident-to-arrest doctrine), admitted limited 2006-arrest evidence under Rule 404(b) with a limiting instruction, overruled Batson objections after hearing race-neutral reasons, and instructed the jury using the “fair inference” (Kungys) approach to unlawful procurement. The jury convicted Mensah; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Mensah) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression: search of vehicle | Search valid as incident to arrest or inventory search; officers reasonably could expect vehicle to contain documents in Appiah name | Warrantless search unlawful; no basis to believe vehicle contained offense-related evidence | Affirmed: search valid as incident to arrest under Gant — reasonable to believe vehicle would contain motor-vehicle documents in alternate name |
| Batson challenge (peremptory strikes of two Asian-American jurors) | Prosecutor offered race-neutral reasons (e.g., juror a scientist, juror young/single lacking life experience); court credited demeanor/reasons | Strikes were pretextual and part of pattern excluding all non-white venire members; comparative jurors were similar and not struck | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err; competing inferences plausible and trial judge’s credibility findings entitled to deference |
| Jury instructions: falsity / "under oath" / unlawful procurement causation | Government supported court’s instructions; "under oath" may be satisfied by written perjury declaration; unlawful procurement may be shown by material misrepresentation that would raise a fair inference of ineligibility (Kungys) | Requested narrower falsity/ambiguity instructions and a but‑for test for procurement; claimed instruction lowered government’s burden | Affirmed: falsity instruction adequate; "under oath" properly included written perjury (28 U.S.C. § 1746); Kungys "fair inference" formulation appropriate in criminal §1425(a) prosecution |
| Sufficiency of evidence (false statement, under oath, knowledge) | Evidence (envelope postmarked Oct 2000, June 2001 supplement, interviewer oath, Mensah’s statements) permitted reasonable inferences that Appiah application preceded naturalization, that Mensah lied under oath, and that he knowingly committed the predicate offense | Govt failed to prove Appiah application preceded naturalization; "N/A" not shown to be false; no proof Mensah knew his visa application was criminal | Affirmed: evidence sufficient as to at least one charged theory (e.g., June 2001 supplement and August 2001 interview); reasonable jurors could find falsity, oath, and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admission of 2006 arrest / documents (404(b)) | Evidence probative of Mensah’s knowledge, intent, and lack of mistake in creating/using Appiah identity; limiting instruction minimized prejudice | Evidence of later misconduct unduly prejudicial; risk jurors infer propensity to commit crimes | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion admitting limited evidence and giving clear limiting instruction; probative value outweighed prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (vehicle search-incident-to-arrest standard)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (standard for material misrepresentation and procurement of citizenship; "fair inference" approach adopted)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (trial-court demeanor/credibility central to Batson determinations)
- Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (relates burden of proof in denaturalization to criminal standard)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (Batson totality-of-the-circumstances analysis)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (general verdict rule; supports upholding conviction if any charged theory is supported)