United States v. Ulises Lucas-Hernandez
FOR PUBLICATION (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Nazemian four-factor analysis, used to determine whether an interpreter's translation of a declarant's statement should be attributed to the declarant for hearsay purposes, applies even when the testifying witness is the translator of a party-opponent's out-of-court statements.
Facts:
- In November 2019, Border Patrol Agent Brian Mauler was patrolling a remote, rugged, and sparsely populated area approximately three-and-a-half miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border.
- Agent Mauler discovered shoe prints crossing a dirt road, followed them, and encountered Ulises Romeo Lucas-Hernandez and two other individuals at the bottom of a twenty-foot-deep sand wash.
- Agent Mauler identified himself as a Border Patrol Agent and conducted a brief field inspection by asking Lucas-Hernandez three questions about his citizenship and immigration status, communicating entirely in Spanish.
- Lucas-Hernandez responded to Agent Mauler's questions, stating he was from Mexico, had no immigration documents to be in the United States, and had illegally entered the United States.
- Based on these responses, Agent Mauler placed Lucas-Hernandez under arrest.
- Lucas-Hernandez's 'A-file' (alien file) indicated that he had been deported from the United States approximately twelve times.
- Neither Lucas-Hernandez's A-file nor relevant database searches contained any documentation that would have allowed him lawful re-entry to the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- Ulises Romeo Lucas-Hernandez was charged with misdemeanor attempted illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1).
- Before his bench trial before a magistrate judge, Lucas-Hernandez moved to exclude Agent Mauler's testimony regarding his Spanish-to-English translation of Lucas-Hernandez's field statements, arguing they were hearsay and that Agent Mauler was not qualified as an expert.
- The magistrate judge denied the motion as to the hearsay argument, reasoning that statements made by a defendant are considered party admissions and not hearsay, and deferred the expert qualification issue.
- After the bench trial, the magistrate judge found Lucas-Hernandez guilty of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) and sentenced him to time served.
- Lucas-Hernandez challenged his conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (appellant Lucas-Hernandez, appellee United States).
- The District Court affirmed the magistrate judge's ruling, finding that the Nazemian factors did not apply, Agent Mauler laid a sufficient foundation for his testimony, and any error in admitting the statements was harmless.
- Lucas-Hernandez timely appealed the District Court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (appellant Lucas-Hernandez, appellee United States).
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 the Nazemian four-factor analysis, which helps courts decide if a translated statement should be treated as the original speaker's own words for hearsay purposes, apply when the person testifying in court is also the one who translated the opposing party's out-of-court statements?
Opinions:
Majority - Susan R. Bolton
Yes, the Nazemian four-factor analysis applies to the statements of a party opponent that are translated by the testifying witness. The court recognized that Nazemian (948 F.2d 522) originally addressed third-party interpreters, but it built upon United States v. Ushakow (474 F.2d 1244), which involved a testifying witness acting as a 'language conduit.' The central inquiry for hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) remains 'whether the translated statements fairly should be considered the statements of the speaker.' The court reasoned that it is 'even more critical' for courts to assess the language competence of a non-formal interpreter, whose language proficiency has not been tested or certified, to ensure the accuracy of statements and prevent miscommunication, especially when their translations are used against a criminal defendant. Despite this legal error by the lower courts in not applying the Nazemian factors, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Lucas-Hernandez's conviction, finding the error was harmless. The government presented significant independent evidence to establish that Lucas-Hernandez lacked legal status, which is a required element of the crime. This evidence included the circumstances of his apprehension (found hiding in a remote, rugged area near the border), his inability to present any lawful entry documentation, testimony that his A-file indicated twelve prior deportations, and database searches confirming no permission for re-entry. Considering this body of evidence, the court concluded that it was 'more probable than not' that the erroneous admission of Agent Mauler's translated statements did not materially affect the verdict. The court clarified that while a prior deportation order alone might not be conclusive proof of alienage in a criminal proceeding (as per Meza-Soria), the documents within an A-file, alongside other circumstantial evidence, can constitute sufficient proof.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the application of the Nazemian 'language conduit' test, extending its protections to situations where a law enforcement officer or other testifying witness directly translates a criminal defendant's statements. This ensures a more rigorous judicial scrutiny of the reliability and accuracy of such translations, which is critical for safeguarding defendants' rights against potentially biased or incompetent interpretation. By mandating the assessment of interpreter qualifications and motives, the ruling aims to prevent miscarriages of justice stemming from linguistic errors. However, the application of a harmless error analysis means that even if a court fails to apply the Nazemian factors, a conviction may still be upheld if robust independent evidence supports the verdict, emphasizing the importance of strong factual records in criminal cases.
