United States v. Phoeun Lang
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3191
1st Cir.2012Background
- Lang, a refugee who became a lawful permanent resident, applied for naturalization using N-400; he was interviewed July 18, 2005 with CIS officer Michaud who verified answers with red checkmarks.
- Question 15 and 22c on N-400 were answered 'No'; Michaud testified these answers would have changed if she knew Lang distributed cocaine.
- Lang received the N-445 form (post-interview) to recap good moral character; he swore to questions after verification; Michaud was not present at oath but familiar with procedures.
- Between N-400 interview and oath, Lang was arrested (Aug 8, 2005) for distributing cocaine and amphetamines; he later pled guilty (Oct 9, 2007).
- Lang’s N-400 and N-445 were admitted at trial; he was convicted on all counts for false statements and unlawful naturalization.
- Lang argues N-445 violates Confrontation Clause, Rule 803(8) public records, and unfair prejudice from references to cocaine conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause applicability | N-445 records are testimonial and require cross-examination | N-445 is a non-testimonial public record created administratively | N-445 not testimonial; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Hearsay exclusion under Rule 803(8) | N-445 should be excluded as law enforcement/ hearsay | N-445 is a non-adversarial public record; admissible | N-445 properly admitted under public records exception |
| Law enforcement exception under Rule 803(8)(A)(ii) | CIS agent as law enforcement; N-445 should be excluded | Case involves routine administrative records; not within law enforcement chill | Law enforcement exception not applicable; still admissible under public records exception |
| Prejudicial impact of prior cocaine conduct | References to prior conviction were unfairly prejudicial given stipulation options | Prejudice was not undue; evidence related to elements of fraud and misrepresentation | Not plain error; references did not impair fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 2004) (defined testimonial hearsay for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Supreme Court 2006) (clarified testimonial vs non-testimonial hearsay distinction)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court 2009) (public/ business record distinction in Rule 803(8) clarified)
- García v. United States, 452 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2006) (warrant of deportation not testimonial; admissibility of non-testimonial records)
- Dowdell v. United States, 595 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2010) (distinction between routine public records and adversarial evidence for Rule 803(8))
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court 1997) (evaluated probative value vs. prejudice when stipulating to prior conviction)
- United States v. Earle, 488 F.3d 537 (1st Cir. 2007) (confrontation analysis of testimonial vs non-testimonial statements)