Evidence — relevance

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Evidence — relevance

In a prosecution for interfering with a deportation order, evidence of the defendant’s prior dealings with immigration authorities was properly excluded as irrelevant.

“Laguna’s proposed testimony about his relationship with ICE from 2004 to early 2010 is irrelevant. The statute only requires proof that Laguna voluntarily and intentionally—that is, willfully—refused to obtain a passport. Any evidence suggesting that some previous relationship with ICE superseded his statutory obligation is immaterial and confusing. In other words, Laguna’s evidence did not negate the government’s assertion that he (1) knew he was removable, (2) knew he needed to obtain a passport, and (3) knew his express refusal to do so contravened his removal order and federal law. Instead, his evidence only shows that he subjectively believed that he would not be prosecuted, which is no defense at all. Such a defense is akin to a defendant asserting that he knew he violated the law, but he did not think he would be caught. Aside from being irrelevant, the evidence also invites jury nullification. That is, the jury might be compelled to acquit simply because ICE had been lenient with Laguna in the past or on the ground that Laguna was a good guy. Laguna cannot ask the jury to return an unlawful verdict, see Perez, 86 F.3d at 736, as the district court rightly held. Finally, Laguna argues that his proposed defense was the sole legal argument that provided a complete rebuttal to his indictment. This is untrue. The district court expressly provided that Laguna could offer intent evidence showing that he was cooperative with law enforcement or that he did not know the steps he needed to take to obtain a passport. He was also permitted to argue that he was unaware of the outstanding removal order. Each line of testimony properly negates the mens rea element of § 1253(a)(1)(B) and (C) without approaching jury nullification.”

Affirmed.

11-3469 U.S. v. Laguna

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kendall, J., Kanne, J.