United States v. Sandoval-Gonzalez
642 F.3d 717
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sandoval-Gonzalez was born in 1957 in Tijuana, Mexico, to a Mexican mother and a U.S. citizen father.
- He entered the United States without inspection at age 14 and was later deported in 2006, after which he crossed back into the U.S. unauthorized.
- He was charged in 2006 and again later with being an alien previously deported and found in the U.S. without permission, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- At trial, the government introduced a recording from his 2006 immigration court deportation hearing to prove alienage.
- The defense sought to introduce derivative citizenship evidence (birth to a U.S. citizen parent) to negate alienage, but the court limited its scope and did not require the government to disprove all derivative-citizenship criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether derivative citizenship is an affirmative defense or a negation of alienage | Sandoval argued derivative citizenship negates alienage | Sandoval contended no burden to prove derivative citizenship | Derivative citizenship negates alienage; no burden on Sandoval to prove it |
| Whether the government improperly shifted the burden of proof to Sandoval on alienage | Meant to prove alienage through defendant’s evidence | Derivative-citizenship evidence allowed but no burden on defendant | Yes, burden shifting occurred and was prejudicial |
| Whether improper burden shifting requires reversal and remand | Errors infected trial; jeopardized verdict | Possibility of harmless error | Conviction vacated and remanded for new trial consistent with this opinion |
| Whether the evidence supports a Rule 29 acquittal challenge given the burden-shift error | Sufficient evidence to convict despite error | No due to burden-shift prejudice | Affirmed denial of Rule 29 motion; remand to address derivative-citizenship issue on retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2005) (derivative citizenship negates alienage; evidence must be heard by jury)
- United States v. Meza-Soria, 935 F.2d 166 (9th Cir. 1991) (alienage is an element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000 (en banc)) (alienage as an element of § 1326 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Ortiz-Lopez, 24 F.3d 53 (9th Cir. 1994) (clarifies alienage and prior deportation as elements for § 1326)
- United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussion of defenses; burden-shifting considerations)
- United States v. Perlaza, 439 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2006) (prosecutor’s burden-shifting statements require corrective measures; harmless-error analysis)