Important Decision Regarding Reentry Instructions
US v. Sierra-Ledesma, Nos. 10-3066 and 3067, 6/2/11 (KS) - Mens rea for an 8 USC § 1326(a) illegal reentry charge based on being found in the US, and how to instruct a jury on it, were the main issues here. Conviction affirmed.
Held: (1) the district court erred by not instructing the jury that, in order to convict, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “reentered the United States with an intent to do so” but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defendant admitted to entering the US by crossing the border in Arizona after having been deported. The district court properly refused to use the 10th’s Pattern Jury Instruction, which has as one element that the defendant was “knowingly found” in the US because the phrase makes no sense. The court still had to instruct on mens rea.
(2) Defendant’s admission that he was born in Mexico was sufficient to prove that he was not a citizen or national of the US.
3) Any error in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior illegal reentry conviction was harmless.
4) any misconduct in prosecutor’s rebuttal closing that the defense argument about the government not having proven that defendant was not a US national was a red herring was harmless.
Held: (1) the district court erred by not instructing the jury that, in order to convict, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “reentered the United States with an intent to do so” but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defendant admitted to entering the US by crossing the border in Arizona after having been deported. The district court properly refused to use the 10th’s Pattern Jury Instruction, which has as one element that the defendant was “knowingly found” in the US because the phrase makes no sense. The court still had to instruct on mens rea.
(2) Defendant’s admission that he was born in Mexico was sufficient to prove that he was not a citizen or national of the US.
3) Any error in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior illegal reentry conviction was harmless.
4) any misconduct in prosecutor’s rebuttal closing that the defense argument about the government not having proven that defendant was not a US national was a red herring was harmless.
posted by Anonymous at 9:29 AM
<< Home