U.S. v. Loyola-Dominguez, LOYOLA-DOMINGUE
| Decision Date | 29 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | LOYOLA-DOMINGUE,No. 96-10312,D,96-10312 |
| Citation | 125 F.3d 1315 |
| Parties | 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1314, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7715, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,373 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacoboefendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mark J. Reichel, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Fresno, CA, for defendant-appellant.
Joseph O. Johns, Assistant United States Attorney, Fresno, CA, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Myron D. Crocker, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-95-05277-MDC.
Before: REINHARDT, T.G. NELSON and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Jacobo Loyola-Dominguez appeals his conviction on one count of being a deported alien found in the United States following an aggravated felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) (1994). Loyola-Dominguez bases his appeal on two grounds: first, he argues that the prosecution presented insufficient
competent evidence to convict him of the offense and that the district court therefore erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; second, he maintains that the district court's failure to grant a competency hearing following his attempted suicide constituted a violation of due process. Although we find the former claim to be without merit, we agree that, under the circumstances, his suicide attempt on the eve of trial raised a bona fide doubt concerning his competency and that the district court erred in refusing to grant a hearing on the issue.
On January 9, 1995, INS Special Agent Jerry Lee Kracher contacted Jacobo Loyola-Dominguez at the county jail in Fresno, California, where he was being detained. After Agent Kracher advised him of his rights under Miranda, Loyola-Dominguez agreed to submit to questioning. During the interview, Loyola-Dominguez admitted the following facts: (1) he is citizen of Mexico; (2) he was convicted in June 1990 of possessing cocaine for sale, a felony under California law; (3) he was twice deported from the United States, first in 1993, and again in 1994; and (4) he illegally re-entered the United States near Tijuana without inspection on January 3, 1995. On the basis of this information, Loyola-Dominguez was indicted on one count of being a deported alien found in the United States and one count of being a deported alien found in the United States following an aggravated felony conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b) (1994).
The trial on these charges was scheduled to begin on the morning of April 16, 1996. On the night of April 15, Loyola-Dominguez tried to commit suicide by hanging himself in his jail cell. In court the next morning, defense counsel advised the district judge that his client had attempted suicide the night before and moved for a hearing to determine competency to stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. 1 Defense counsel elaborated on his concerns regarding Loyola-Dominguez's competency:
And I have additional information, background information, that he's been in the isolation ward. He's been in isolation, in the hole, I think it's called, or administrative segregation since November. And in that particular environment he's not given much exercise, much yard time, much--any educational or social interacting type of opportunities. In fact, it seems like it's just isolation most of the time, except for showers and when he comes to court. And that type of sensory deprivation and isolation, in fact, may have led to what happened last night.
As well, he's advised me that approximately two or three weeks ago there was a fight with himself and another member, a jail staff member. I know that the marshals advised me at one time that, yes, there was a fight at the jail with him and a staff member, a jail guard. He's advised me that his jaw, his nose and his back was hurt in this altercation and that for three weeks he's requested medicine or medical contact and he said he hasn't received it. And then I was advised that last night he attempted suicide.
The court did not immediately grant or deny the motion, but instead briefly questioned Loyola-Dominguez (with the assistance of a translator) in order to determine whether a competency hearing was warranted. The following exchange represents the entire colloquy:
want to do is get away from here, get out of here.
Following the exchange, the court appeared inclined to deny the motion; in particular, the court expressed concern about how long it would take to have Loyola-Dominguez examined by a psychiatrist.
Following this brief discussion, the district court determined that there was no cause to question Loyola-Dominguez's competency. It denied the motion for a hearing and summoned the jurors.
At trial, the government relied principally on Agent Kracher to establish its case against Loyola-Dominguez. Agent Kracher testified about his interview with Loyola-Dominguez, and he served as the conduit through which the government introduced documents from the INS's Alien Registry File (otherwise known as the "A" file). The "A" file contained INS documents relating to Loyola-Dominguez, which the government used to prove that Loyola-Dominguez had previously been deported from the United States. On the stand, Agent Kracher removed each document from the "A" file and explained its significance to the jury. 2
The trial lasted one day and the jury quickly convicted Loyola-Dominguez on one count of being a deported alien found in the United States following an aggravated felony. Loyola-Dominguez made a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the court denied. This appeal followed.
Loyola-Dominguez argues that the district court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because the government presented insufficient competent evidence to convict him. Specifically, Loyola-Dominguez maintains that the "A" file records admitted at his trial were hearsay evidence and were therefore inadmissible to prove his guilt. Furthermore, he asserts that admitting such hearsay evidence constituted a violation of his sixth amendment right to confront witnesses. See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). According to Loyola-Dominguez, without these documents, the government's only evidence of guilt was his extrajudicial confession to Agent Kracher, and under the corpus delicti rule, this evidence alone was insufficient to convict him. The government contends that the documents were properly admitted as public records. We agree with the government.
This court has held that warrants for deportation are generally admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) and are not subject to the law enforcement exception to that rule. United States v. Hernandez-Rojas, 617 F.2d 533, 534-35 (9th Cir.1980) (finding To support his argument, Loyola-Dominguez points out that when he objected to the admission of the documents at trial, the government erroneously maintained that the documents were "self-authenticating," implying that there was a hearsay exception for self-authenticating documents. Although Loyola-Dominguez is correct in his assertion that no such hearsay exception exists, the trial court did not rely on the government's characterization, but instead allowed the documents to be admitted as "official records of the Immigration & Naturalization agency."
that although such records are made by law enforcement agents, they reflect only "ministerial, objective observation[s]" and do not implicate the concerns...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickey v. Davis
...alleged indicia of incompetency are not on par with those in United States v. Loyola-Dominguez, a case upon which he relies. 125 F.3d 1315, 1318-19 (9th Cir. 1997) (inadequately explained attempted suicide on the eve of trial); cf. Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 121 F.3d 486, 489 (9th Cir. 1997) (n......
-
White v. Arnold
...2254(d)(2) because state court's denial of competency hearing was based on an unreasonable factual findings); United States v. Loyola-Dominguez, 125 F.3d 1315, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997) (when a trial court is presented with evidence that creates a "bona fide doubt" about the defendant's competen......
-
Contreras v. Rice, CV 97-2120-JGD(RC).
...not "every suicide attempt inevitably creates a [bona fide] doubt concerning the defendant's competency."7 United States v. Loyola-Dominguez, 125 F.3d 1315, 1318-19 (9th Cir.1997). Since the petitioner's real suicide attempt on September 19, 1991, occurred more than three months before his ......
-
Ruiz v. Fernandez
...presumed trustworthy, placing the burden of establishing untrustworthiness on the opponent of the evidence.” United States v. Loyola–Dominguez, 125 F.3d 1315, 1318 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation omitted); see also Johnson v. City of Pleasanton, 982 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir.1992) (“A party......
-
§ 33.12 Public Records: FRE 803(8)
...of the vehicle, and the date of the crossing, is quintessentially ministerial and non-adversarial."); United States v. Loyola-Dominguez, 125 F.3d 1315, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997) (warrants of deportation generally admissible and not subject to the law enforcement exception); United States v. Brow......
-
§ 33.12 PUBLIC RECORDS: FRE 803(8)
...789, 793 (9th Cir. 1979) (customs officer's recording of license plate numbers admissible). See also United States v. Loyola-Dominguez, 125 F.3d 1315, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997) (warrants of deportation generally admissible and not subject to the law enforcement exception); United States v. Brown......