United States v. Hector Arellano-Rivera,defendant-Appellant
2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2732, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 3375, 244 F.3d 1119 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant cannot claim the necessity defense for a charge of illegal reentry if they failed to pursue available legal alternatives, such as petitioning the Attorney General for temporary admission. A defendant's speculation that such a petition would be denied does not negate the requirement to attempt the legal alternative.
Facts:
- Hector Arellano-Rivera, a citizen of Mexico, had been previously deported from the United States.
- Arellano-Rivera suffered from an advanced case of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and related diseases.
- He believed that the medical treatment he needed was unavailable in Mexico.
- Without first petitioning the Attorney General for permission to reapply for admission, Arellano-Rivera reentered the United States.
- On October 5, 1999, a U.S. Border Patrol agent found Arellano-Rivera in California, approximately two miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.
- Upon being found, Arellano-Rivera admitted he was a Mexican citizen and had no legal right to be in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- A criminal complaint was filed against Hector Arellano-Rivera in U.S. District Court, charging him with illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The government later filed a criminal information on lesser charges as part of a plea offer, which Arellano-Rivera ultimately rejected.
- A grand jury returned an indictment charging Arellano-Rivera with the original § 1326 violation.
- Arellano-Rivera's counsel moved to dismiss the indictment based on Speedy Trial Act violations, but the district court denied the motion.
- At trial, the district court granted the government's motion to preclude Arellano-Rivera from presenting evidence of a necessity defense, finding his offer of proof insufficient.
- A jury found Arellano-Rivera guilty of illegal reentry.
- The district court sentenced Arellano-Rivera to sixty months in prison, enhancing his sentence based on prior convictions.
- Arellano-Rivera (Appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing against the United States (Appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's failure to pursue a viable legal alternative, such as petitioning the Attorney General for reentry, preclude the use of the necessity defense to a charge of illegal reentry, even when the defendant reentered to seek life-saving medical treatment?
Opinions:
Majority - Trott, J.
Yes. A defendant's failure to pursue a viable legal alternative precludes the use of the necessity defense. To present a necessity defense, a defendant's offer of proof must show that a reasonable jury could find four elements: (1) a choice between two evils where they chose the lesser evil; (2) action to prevent imminent harm; (3) a reasonable anticipation of a causal link between their conduct and the harm to be avoided; and (4) the absence of any other legal alternatives. The court found Arellano-Rivera's offer of proof was deficient as a matter of law on the fourth element. A statutory legal alternative existed: Arellano-Rivera could have petitioned the Attorney General for temporary admission into the United States based on his medical condition, as provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2)(A). His failure to attempt this legal process, even if he speculated it would be unsuccessful, was fatal to his defense. Because his offer of proof failed on this element, the district court correctly precluded him from presenting the necessity defense to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes the 'no legal alternatives' prong of the necessity defense, significantly raising the bar for defendants charged with illegal reentry. The ruling establishes that the statutory process for requesting admission is a 'viable legal alternative' that must be exhausted, regardless of the defendant's assessment of its likely success. This precedent makes it exceedingly difficult for individuals who reenter the U.S. for urgent medical or humanitarian reasons to successfully argue necessity. The case solidifies the principle that a defendant cannot bypass established legal and administrative procedures and then claim necessity as an excuse for violating the law.
