United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/53

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1066

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

DAVI D K. MENSAH, a/ k/ a Wi l l ber f orce Appi ah,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nat hani el M. Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Sel ya, and Li pez,

Ci r cui t J udges.

J udi t h H. Mi zner , wi t h whomRheba Rutkowski , Assi st ant FederalPubl i c Def ender , and Mi r i am Conr ad, Feder al Publ i c Def ender , wer eon br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Kel l y Begg Lawr ence, Assi st ant U. S. At t or ney, wi t h whomCar men

M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

December 16, 2013


2/53

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant Davi d Mensah

successf ul l y negot i at ed t he compl exi t i es of Uni t ed St at es

i mmi gr at i on l aw t wi ce: f i r st , t o become a nat ur al i zed ci t i zen under

hi s own name and, second, t o obt ai n a di ver si t y vi sa under t he

f al se name Wi l l ber f or ce Appi ah. Hi s success, however , was shor t -

l i ved. The government detect ed Mensah' s doubl e di ppi ng, and he was

subsequent l y f ound gui l t y by a j ur y on a char ge of unl awf ul

pr ocur ement of nat ur al i zat i on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1425( a) ,

based on hi s conceal ment of hi s Appi ah i dent i t y. On appeal , Mensah

r ai ses a host of er r or s, r angi ng f r omconst i t ut i onal cl ai ms t o t he

al l egedl y i mpr oper admi ssi on of pr opensi t y evi dence. Hi s most

substant i al cl ai m i s t hat t he sel ect i on of hi s j ur y i nvol ved

pur posef ul di scr i mi nat i on. See Bat son v. Kent ucky, 476 U. S. 79, 86

( 1986) . Al t hough t he i ssue i s cl ose, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t di d not cl ear l y er r i n al l owi ng t he pr osecut or ' s per empt or y

chal l enges t o t wo Asi an- Amer i can pot ent i al j ur or s. Hence, we

af f i r m.

I.

The f act s, as suppor t ed by t he r ecor d, ar e as f ol l ows.

Appel l ant Mensah ent ered t he Uni t ed St ates f r omGhana i n t he ear l y

1990s and r ecei ved permanent l egal r esi dent st atus i n 1995 pur suant

t o a di ver si t y vi sa. 1 Mensah obt ai ned a Massachuset t s dr i ver ' s

1 "Di ver si t y vi sas" ar e made avai l abl e t o ci t i zens ofcount r i es t hat have been under - r epr esent ed "wi t hi n t he annual poolof i mmi gr ant s ent er i ng t he Uni t ed St at es. " Uni t ed St at es v.

-2-


3/53

l i cense t wo year s l at er . I n Oct ober 2000, he appl i ed f or a

di ver si t y vi sa i n t he name of Wi l l ber f or ce Appi ah, 2 and a f ew

mont hs l at er , i n Febr uar y 2001, he appl i ed f or ci t i zenshi p under

hi s own name. I n t he nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on, Mensah r esponded

"N/ A" t o a r equest f or " [ o] t her names used si nce you f i r st became

a permanent r esi dent . " The appl i cat i on al so asked whether Mensah

had ever "knowi ngl y commi t t ed any cr i me f or whi ch [ he had] not been

arr est ed. " Mensah checked t he box l abel ed "No. " He al so si gned an

af f i r mat i on on t he f or m st at i ng t hat "t hi s appl i cat i on, and t he

evi dence submi t t ed wi t h i t , i s al l t r ue and cor r ect . "

I n J une 2001, Mensah f ol l owed up on the Appi ah vi sa

appl i cat i on by submi t t i ng a f or mt i t l ed "Suppl ement al Regi st r at i on

f or t he Di ver si t y Vi sa Pr ogr am. " He l i st ed t he same addr ess i n

Ghana that he had used i n t he or i gi nal Appi ah appl i cat i on, agai n

not i ng t hat mai l shoul d be sent t her e "c/ o D. K. Mensah. " I n

December 2001, Mensah f i l ed hi s f i nal Appi ah appl i cat i on f or a

di ver si t y vi sa, al ong wi t h an af f i davi t i n hi s own name sponsor i ng

Kouevi , 698 F. 3d 126, 127 ( 3d Ci r . 2012) ; see al so Amour i v.Hol der , 572 F. 3d 29, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; 8 U. S. C. 1153( c) . Thevi sas ar e di st r i but ed by means of an annual l ot t er y hel d by t heDepart ment of St ate. Gebr e v. Ri ce, 462 F. Supp. 2d 186, 187 ( D.Mass. 2006) ( descr i bi ng t he Di ver si t y Vi sa Pr ogr am) .

2 I n addi t i on t o the appl i cat i on i t sel f , whi ch was undat ed,t he government i nt r oduced i nt o evi dence an envel ope addr essed t ot he Di ver si t y Pr ogr am, post marked i n Oct ober 2000, and bear i ng ar etur n address i n Ghana t hat i ncl uded "c/ o DK Mensah. " Mensahemphasi zes t hat t her e i s no di r ect evi dence pr ovi ng t hat t he Appi ahappl i cat i on was i n t he envel ope.

-3-


4/53

Appi ah f or t he vi sa. The gover nment i ssued a di ver si t y vi sa t o

Appi ah i n August 2002, and Mensah used i t when he r etur ned t o t he

Uni t ed St at es a f ew weeks l at er af t er a t r i p t o Ghana. 3 Shor t l y

t her eaf t er , he obt ai ned a Massachuset t s st at e i dent i f i cat i on car d

i n Appi ah' s name and, i n May 2003, a dr i ver ' s l i cense.

Meanwhi l e, i n August 2001, Mensah was i nt ervi ewed by t he

I mmi gr at i on and Nat ur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( " I NS") i n connect i on wi t h

hi s nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on. Af t er pl aci ng Mensah under oat h,

t he exami ner , Al t on Sauci er , asked hi m a ser i es of quest i ons,

i ncl udi ng whether Mensah had ever knowi ngl y commi t t ed a cr i me f or

whi ch he had not been ar r est ed. Mensah r esponded t hat he had

"never " done so. At t he end of t he i nt er vi ew, Mensah si gned t he

appl i cat i on, swear i ng t hat i t was " t r ue t o the best of my knowl edge

and bel i ef . " Sauci er r ecommended appr oval of Mensah' s

nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on, and he became a ci t i zen i n Sept ember

2001 - - i n t he mi dst of hi s act i vi t i es t o creat e a second i dent i t y

as Wi l l ber f or ce Appi ah.

I n Oct ober 2006, t he Massachuset t s St at e Pol i ce ( "MSP")

l ear ned t hat Mensah had obt ai ned dr i ver ' s l i censes under bot h

names, i n vi ol at i on of st at e l aw bar r i ng t he use of f al se

i nf or mat i on t o pr ocur e a l i cense. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90,

24B. Of f i cer s obt ai ned a war r ant char gi ng hi m wi t h vi ol at i ng

3 I n hi s nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on, Mensah r epor t ed t hat heper i odi cal l y vi si t ed f ami l y i n Ghana.

-4-


5/53

sect i on 24B and, a mont h l at er , ar r est ed hi m i n hi s car a f ew

bl ocks f r om hi s home. Dur i ng an i nvent or y sear ch of t he vehi cl e,

t he of f i cer s f ound mul t i pl e document s bear i ng t he f al se Appi ah

name. I n J anuary 2009, Mensah admi t t ed i n st ate cour t t hat

suf f i ci ent f act s exi st ed t o sust ai n a convi ct i on under sect i on 24B,

and t he case was cont i nued wi t hout a f i ndi ng. 4

A subsequent i nvest i gat i on by I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms

Enf or cement ( " I CE") l ed t o Mensah' s i ndi ct ment i n t hi s case i n

March 2010 on one count of unl awf ul pr ocur ement of natur al i zat i on,

i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1425( a) . 5 The gover nment char ged t hat

Mensah had unl awf ul l y obt ai ned natur al i zat i on by maki ng mater i al

f al se st at ement s under oat h dur i ng hi s nat ur al i zat i on pr oceedi ngs,

i n vi ol at i on of 1015( a) - - i . e. , he al l egedl y pr ocur ed

nat ur al i zat i on, "cont r ar y t o l aw, " by maki ng unl awf ul f al se

st at ement s i n hi s nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on and i nt er vi ew. 6 A

Bi l l of Par t i cul ar s f i l ed by the gover nment at Mensah' s r equest

4 Such a cont i nuance occurs when a def endant agr ees t o aper i od of pr obat i on wi t hout a gui l t y f i ndi ng, and i t can l ead t odi smi ssal of t he case i f t he def endant adher es t o t he condi t i ons ofpr obat i on. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 18.

5 Sect i on 1425( a) pr ovi des t hat " [ w] hoever knowi ngl y pr ocur esor at t empt s t o pr ocur e, cont r ar y t o l aw, t he nat ur al i zat i on of anyper son, or document ar y or ot her evi dence of nat ur al i zat i on or of

ci t i zenshi p" i s gui l t y of a cri me. 18 U. S. C. 1425( a) .

6Sect i on 1015( a) pr ovi des t hat " [ w] hoever knowi ngl y makes anyf al se st at ement under oat h, i n any case, pr oceedi ng, or mat t err el at i ng t o, or under , or by vi r t ue of any l aw of t he Uni t ed St at esr el at i ng t o nat ur al i zat i on, ci t i zenshi p, or r egi str y of al i ens" i sgui l t y of a cr i me. 18 U. S. C. 1015( a) .

-5-


6/53

poi nt ed t o t hr ee f al se st at ement s: ( 1) hi s r esponse "N/ A" on t he

nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on f or m, when asked i f he had used ot her

names si nce becomi ng a permanent r esi dent , ( 2) hi s answer of "no"

( by checki ng a box on the f orm) , when asked i f he had "ever

knowi ngl y commi t t ed any cr i me" f or whi ch he had not been ar r est ed,

and ( 3) hi s oral st at ement t o I NS Of f i cer Sauci er i n August 2001

r epeat i ng that he had never knowi ngl y commi t t ed such a cr i me.

Mensah moved t o suppress t he document s f ound i n hi s car

on t he gr ound t hat t he of f i cer s who ar r est ed hi munl awf ul l y sei zed

and sear ched t he vehi cl e. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on.

Char act er i zi ng t he i nspect i on of Mensah' s car as a war r ant l ess

i nvent or y sear ch, t he cour t hel d t hat i t was per mi ssi bl e under t he

Four t h Amendment because t he of f i cer s had act ed pur suant t o

"st andar di zed pol i ci es. " See Secti on I I i nf r a. The di st r i ct cour t

al so r ej ect ed Mensah' s Bat son chal l enge t o t he gover nment ' s

per empt or y st r i kes of t he onl y t wo Asi an- Amer i cans i n t he j ur y

pool , credi t i ng t he pr osecut or ' s r ace- neut r al r easons f or excl udi ng

t hem. See Sect i on I I I i nf r a.

At t r i al , t he gover nment ' s t heor y was t hat al l t hr ee of

t he st at ement s al l eged t o be f al se wer e unt r ue because, at t he t i me

t hey wer e made, Mensah had pr evi ousl y appl i ed f or t he di ver si t y

vi sa usi ng the f ake Appi ah name - - a cr i me under 18 U. S. C.

-6-


7/53

1001( a) ( 2) . 7 Thus, he knowi ngl y l i ed i n hi s nat ur al i zat i on

appl i cat i on - - i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1015( a) - - when he

deni ed t hat he had used ot her names ( by r espondi ng t hat t he

quest i on was not appl i cabl e t o hi m) and when he twi ce report ed

( once i n t he appl i cat i on and once i n t he i nt er vi ew) t hat he had

never knowi ngl y commi t t ed a cr i me f or whi ch he had not been

ar r est ed ( t he sect i on 1001( a) ( 2) vi ol at i on) . The sect i on 1015

vi ol at i on t hen became t he pr edi cat e f or t he sect i on 1425( a)

vi ol at i on, i . e. , he al l egedl y pr ocur ed nat ur al i zat i on cont r ar y to

l aw by means of t hose unl awf ul f al se st atement s. 8

Mensah di d not di sput e the f act s under l yi ng t he unl awf ul

pr ocur ement char ge. He admi t t ed t hat he had appl i ed f or a vi sa i n

t he name of Wi l l ber f orce Appi ah and t hat he had answered t he

quest i ons i n t he manner r epor t ed above whi l e obt ai ni ng ci t i zenshi p

i n hi s own name. Hi s def ense, i nst ead, was t hat t he government had

f ai l ed t o pr ove mul t i pl e el ement s of t he cr i me beyond a r easonabl e

doubt . Speci f i cal l y, he ar gued t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o show

t hat ( 1) he knowi ngl y commi t t ed a cr i me by submi t t i ng the Appi ah

di ver si t y vi sa appl i cat i on, ( 2) t he st at ement s on t he

7 Sect i on 1001( a) ( 2) i mposes a f i ne or i mpr i sonment , or bot h,on anyone who " i n any mat t er wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he

execut i ve, l egi sl at i ve, or j udi ci al br anch of t he Gover nment of t heUni t ed St at es, knowi ngl y and wi l l f ul l y . . . makes any mat er i al l yf al se, f i cti t i ous, or f r audul ent st at ement or r epr esent at i on. "

8 Mensah was not char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng sect i on 1015 becauset he stat ut e of l i mi t at i ons had r un on t hat of f ense by t he t i me thegover nment compl et ed i t s i nvest i gat i on.

-7-


8/53

nat ur al i zat i on f or m wer e made under oat h, ( 3) "N/ A" as a r esponse

t o t he quest i on about ot her i dent i t i es was a f al se st at ement , and

( 4) he knew t hat he was st at ut or i l y i nel i gi bl e f or ci t i zenshi p at

t he t i me t hat he appl i ed f or and obt ai ned nat ur al i zat i on. The j ur y

was not per suaded, f i ndi ng Mensah gui l t y af t er t wo hour s of

del i ber at i on.

On appeal , Mensah r enews hi s Four t h Amendment chal l enge

t o t he sear ch and sei zur e of hi s vehi cl e and hi s Bat son chal l enge

t o the pr osecut or ' s per empt or y st r i kes of " t he onl y Asi an member s

of t he j ur y veni r e. " He addi t i onal l y cl ai ms that t he evi dence was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he j ur y ver di ct, asser t s er r or i n cer t ai n

j ury i nst r uct i ons, and ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on i n al l owi ng t he gover nment t o i nt r oduce evi dence

concer ni ng hi s dr i ver ' s l i cense ar r est .

II.

Mensah cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y deni ed

hi s mot i on t o suppr ess t he document s bear i ng t he name Wi l l ber f orce

Appi ah t hat wer e sei zed f r om hi s car af t er hi s ar r est i n November

2006, as wel l as unspeci f i ed st atement s concerni ng t hose document s

t hat he made t o of f i cers. The document s were f ound on t he f r ont

passenger f l oor and i n the unl ocked gl ove compart ment dur i ng a

sear ch of hi s car t hat t ook pl ace af t er Mensah was handcuf f ed and

pl aced i n a pol i ce cr ui ser . Among t he i t ems f ound wi t h t he Appi ah

name were a checkbook, a cr edi t uni on member shi p card, and an

-8-


9/53

i nsur ance bi l l and r ecei pt r el at i ng t o t wo vehi cl es. The di st r i ct

cour t hel d t hat t he t r ooper s' sear ch of t he car was per mi ssi bl e

under t he Four t h Amendment because t he of f i cer s had f ol l owed

st andard MSP pr ocedur es f or t owi ng a vehi cl e and conduct i ng an

i nvent or y sear ch.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ul t i mat e r ul i ng on

suppr essi on de novo, accept i ng i t s under l yi ng f act ual f i ndi ngs

unl ess cl ear l y er r oneous. Uni t ed St at es v. Wur i e, 728 F. 3d 1, 2- 3

( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Because t he cour t f ound a l awf ul i nvent or y

sear ch, i t di d not addr ess t he gover nment ' s argument t hat t he

of f i cer s' exami nat i on of t he vehi cl e al so was j ust i f i ed as a sear ch

i nci dent t o ar r est . Wi t hout suggest i ng any r eser vat i ons about t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s anal ysi s, we choose t o f ocus on t he sear ch-

i nci dent - t o- ar r est doct r i ne because i t easi l y di sposes of t he cl ai m

of er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Sanchez, 612 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( not i ng t hat a di st r i ct cour t or der denyi ng suppr essi on may

be af f i r med on any gr ound suppor t ed by the r ecor d) .

A war r ant l ess sear ch i nci dent t o ar r est i s per mi ssi bl e

"when i t i s r easonabl e t o bel i eve t hat evi dence of t he of f ense of

ar r est mi ght be f ound i n t he vehi cl e. " Ar i zona v. Gant , 556 U. S.

332, 335, 343 ( 2009) . Her e, t he of f i cer s' i nvest i gat i on had

r eveal ed t hat Mensah had obt ai ned dr i ver ' s l i censes under t wo

di f f er ent names, one of whi ch was f al se. The t r ooper s had a val i d

ar r est war r ant char gi ng hi m wi t h unl awf ul l y obt ai ni ng a dr i ver ' s

-9-


10/53

l i cense under a f al se name. When Mensah was st opped whi l e dr i vi ng,

he gave of f i cer s a l i cense and r egi st r at i on i n hi s own name. The

di sposi t i ve i ssue i s t hus whet her t he of f i cer s coul d have

r easonabl y bel i eved t hat t he l i cense bear i ng Mensah' s second, f al se

i dent i t y - - or other document s showi ng that Mensah had secur ed a

l i cense under t he Appi ah name - - al so woul d be i n t he vehi cl e.

Mensah asser t s t hat t he government has of f ered no f act s

t o suppor t an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat such evi dence

woul d be f ound i n t he car . As t he government obser ves, however ,

t he passenger compar t ment of a car i s " by cust omand necessi t y[ ] a

common r eposi t ory f or motor vehi cl e- r el ated document s. " Gi ven t hat

t he of f i cer s knew t hat Mensah was usi ng l i censes i n t wo di f f er ent

names, i t woul d be r easonabl e f or t hem t o pr esume t hat he had

obt ai ned mul t i pl e l i censes so t hat he coul d r epr esent hi msel f as a

di f f er ent per son at hi s conveni ence. I t woul d t hus be r easonabl e

f or t he of f i cer s t o bel i eve t hat he woul d have bot h l i censes

r eadi l y avai l abl e i n hi s vehi cl e.

Mor eover , cont r ar y t o Mensah' s suggest i on, i t i s

i r r el evant t hat t he t r ooper conduct i ng t he sear ch had i n mi nd MSP

pol i cy gover ni ng t owi ng and i nvent or y sear ches r at her t han t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s pr ecedent on sear ches of vehi cl es i nci dent t o

ar r est . See Fl or i da v. J ar di nes, 133 S. Ct . 1409, 1416 ( 2013)

( "[ A] st op or sear ch t hat i s obj ect i vel y r easonabl e i s not vi t i at ed

by t he f act t hat t he of f i cer ' s r eal r eason f or maki ng t he st op or

-10-


11/53

sear ch has not hi ng to do wi t h the val i dat i ng reason. " ( emphasi s

del et ed) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hadf i el d, 918 F. 2d 987, 993 ( 1st Ci r .

1990) ( "[ A] n of f i cer ' s st at e of mi nd or subj ect i ve i nt ent i n

conduct i ng a sear ch i s i napposi t e as l ong as t he ci r cumst ances,

vi ewed obj ect i vel y, j ust i f y t he act i on t aken. ") . Hence, "t he

l i kel i hood of di scover i ng of f ense- r el at ed evi dence aut hor i zed t he

sear ch i n t hi s case. " Gant , 556 U. S. at 344.

The di st r i ct cour t t hus cor r ect l y deni ed Mensah' s mot i on

t o suppr ess.

III.

Mensah cl ai ms t hat t he pr osecut or exer ci sed hi s

per empt or y chal l enges t o excl ude t wo Asi an- Amer i cans f r omt he j ur y

sol el y on account of t hei r r ace, i n vi ol at i on of t he Equal

Pr ot ect i on Cl ause.

A. Legal Background

I n Bat son v. Kent ucky, t he Supr eme Cour t r eaf f i r med the

l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl e t hat a cr i mi nal def endant ' s equal pr ot ect i on

r i ght s ar e vi ol at ed when j ur y sel ecti on at hi s t r i al i s "af f ected

by i nvi di ous r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Gi r ouar d,

521 F. 3d 110, 112 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; see al so Mi l l er - El v. Dr et ke,

545 U. S. 231, 238 ( 2005) ; Bat son, 476 U. S. at 85- 87. The obst acl e

t o er adi cat i ng such i mper mi ssi bl e mot i vat i on has been " t he

pr act i cal di f f i cul t y of f er r et i ng out di scr i mi nat i on i n sel ect i ons

di scr et i onar y by nat ur e, and choi ces subj ect t o myr i ad l egi t i mat e

-11-


12/53

i nf l uences, what ever t he r ace of t he i ndi vi dual s on t he panel f r om

whi ch j ur or s ar e sel ect ed. " Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at 238. Because

per empt or y st r i kes have l ong been used t o excl ude mi nor i t i es f r om

j ur i es, t he Cour t i n Bat son out l i ned a t hree- par t bur den- shi f t i ng

f r amework - now commonl y cal l ed a "Bat son chal l enge" - under

whi ch a def endant can di sput e a pr osecut or ' s use of perempt ory

st r i kes agai nst mi nor i t y j ur or s and show an equal pr ot ect i on

vi ol at i on:

Fi r st , a def endant must make a pr i ma f aci eshowi ng that a perempt ory chal l enge has beenexer ci sed on t he basi s of r ace. Second, i ft hat showi ng has been made, t he pr osecut i onmust of f er a r ace- neut r al basi s f or st r i ki ngt he j ur or i n quest i on. Thi r d, i n l i ght of t hepar t i es' submi ssi ons, t he t r i al cour t mustdet ermi ne whet her t he def endant has shownpur posef ul di scr i mi nat i on.

Mi l l er - El v. Cr ockr el l , 537 U. S. 322, 328- 29 ( 2003) ( ci t i ng Bat son,

476 U. S. at 96- 98) ( speci f i c ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . 9

The par t i es her e do not di sput e t hat Mensah has made a

sat i sf act or y pr i ma f aci e showi ng and that t he gover nment has

pr of f er ed r ace- neut r al r easons f or i t s st r i kes. We t her ef or e f ocus

excl usi vel y on t he t hi r d st ep: was t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect t hat

Mensah f ai l ed t o car r y hi s bur den of demonst r at i ng pur posef ul

9 We not e t hat t he Bat son f r amewor k has been ext ended beyondi t s or i gi nal cont ext t o cover , i nt er al i a, cl ai ms of genderdi scri mi nat i on i n j ur y sel ect i on, see J . E. B. v. Al abama ex r el .T. B. , 511 U. S. 127, 129 ( 1994) , and j ury sel ect i on i n ci vi l cases,see Edmonson v. Leesvi l l e Concr et e Co. , 500 U. S. 614, 616 ( 1991) .

-12-


13/53

di scr i mi nat i on? See Uni t ed St at es v. Lar a, 181 F. 3d 183, 194 ( 1st

Ci r . 1999) ( not i ng t hat "we can t r uncat e t he usual i nqui r y" wher e

a pr el i mi nar y st ep i s undi sput ed) .

The par t y opposi ng a per emptor y st r i ke bear s t he bur den

of pr oof t hr oughout t he i nqui r y. Gi r ouar d, 521 F. 3d at 113. We

r evi ew f or cl ear er r or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f actual det er mi nat i on

t hat t he pr osecut or was not mot i vat ed by race, Uni t ed St at es v.

Char l t on, 600 F. 3d 43, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) , mi ndf ul t hat

"det er mi nat i ons of credi bi l i t y and demeanor l i e pecul i ar l y wi t hi n

a t r i al j udge' s pr ovi nce, " Snyder v. Loui si ana, 552 U. S. 472, 477

( 2008) ( i nt ernal quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . The Supr eme Cour t has

not ed t he i mpor t ance of "t he t r i al cour t ' s f i r st - hand obser vat i ons"

because "' t he best evi dence [ of di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent ] of t en wi l l

be t he demeanor of t he at t or ney who exer ci ses t he chal l enge, ' "

al ong wi t h "whet her t he j ur or ' s demeanor can cr edi bl y be sai d t o

have exhi bi t ed t he basi s f or t he st r i ke at t r i but ed t o t he j ur or by

t he pr osecut or . " I d. ( quot i ng Her nandez v. New Yor k, 500 U. S. 352,

365 ( 1991) ) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . A f actual er r or by t he

di st r i ct cour t i s "cl ear " onl y wher e "we ar e l ef t wi t h t he def i ni t e

and f i r m convi ct i on t hat a mi st ake has been commi t t ed. " Uni t ed

St ates v. Gonzal ez- Mel endez, 594 F. 3d 28, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

I n eval uat i ng a cl ai mof pur posef ul di scr i mi nat i on under

Bat son, "a cour t must under t ake a sensi t i ve i nqui r y i nt o such

-13-


14/53

ci r cumst ant i al and di r ect evi dence of i nt ent as may be avai l abl e, "

476 U. S. at 93 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) , consi der i ng "al l

r el evant ci r cumst ances, " i d. at 96; see al so Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at

251- 52 ( st at i ng t hat t he cour t must "assess t he pl ausi bi l i t y of

t h[ e pr osecut or ' s] r eason i n l i ght of al l evi dence wi t h a bear i ng

on i t " ) ; Her nandez, 500 U. S. at 363 ( " [ A] n i nvi di ous di scr i mi nat or y

pur pose may of t en be i nf er r ed f r om t he t ot al i t y of t he r el evant

f act s . . . . " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) ) . I n keepi ng wi t h t he t ot al i t y- of - t he- ci r cumst ances

appr oach, t he anal ysi s may t ake i nt o account whether expl anat i ons

f or chal l enges made l at er i n t he pr ocess shed l i ght on an ear l i er

st r i ke. See Snyder , 552 U. S. at 478 ( st at i ng t hat , "i f t her e wer e

per si st i ng doubt s as t o the out come" i n one i nst ance, "a cour t

woul d be r equi r ed t o consi der t he st r i ke of [ anot her i ndi vi dual ]

f or t he bear i ng i t mi ght have" on t he ot her chal l enge) ; see al so

Char l t on, 600 F. 3d at 55 ( Lynch, C. J . , concur r i ng) ( not i ng t hat

seemi ngl y per mi ssi bl e i ndi vi dual st r i kes may need "a second l ook"

i f , when t aken t oget her , t hey "cr eat e a concer n t hat cer t ai n gr oups

ar e under r epr esent ed") .

Cour t s f r equent l y l ook t o "numer i c" evi dence t o det ect

i mper mi ssi bl e di scr i mi nat i on, i ncl udi ng " t he per cent age of a

par t i cul ar gr oup r emoved f r omt he veni r e by the chal l enged st r i kes"

and " t he per cent age of st r i kes di r ect ed agai nst member s of a

par t i cul ar group. " Aspen v. Bi ssonnet t e, 480 F. 3d 571, 577 ( 1st

-14-


15/53

Ci r . 2007) . Compar i ng t he t r eatment of whi t e and non- whi t e

pot ent i al veni r e member s al so may shed l i ght on t he pr osecut or ' s

i nt ent i ons. "I f a pr osecut or ' s pr of f er ed r eason f or st r i ki ng a

bl ack panel i st appl i es j ust as wel l t o an ot her wi se- si mi l ar

nonbl ack who i s per mi t t ed t o ser ve, t hat i s evi dence t endi ng t o

pr ove pur posef ul di scr i mi nat i on t o be consi der ed at Bat son' s t hi r d

st ep. " Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at 241; see al so Char l t on, 600 F. 3d at 50-

51 ( not i ng t hat ci r cumst ances bear i ng on r aci al ani mosi t y i ncl ude

"' whet her si mi l ar l y si t uat ed j ur or s f r om out si de t he al l egedl y

t ar get ed gr oup wer e per mi t t ed t o ser ve' " ( quot i ng Aspen, 480 F. 3d

at 577) ) .

The ci r cumst ances her e di f f er f r om t he cl ass i c Bat son

case, i n whi ch a pr osecut or exer ci ses per empt or y st r i kes agai nst

j uror s who ar e of t he same non- whi t e r ace as t he def endant . I n

t hi s case, Mensah, who i s bl ack, cont est s t he pr osecut or ' s

chal l enges of t wo Asi an- Amer i can j ur ors. Hence, Mensah cannot

ar gue t hat t he pr osecut or ' s st r i kes were i mper mi ssi bl y based on an

assumpt i on t hat t he st r uck j ur or s woul d f avor hi mbecause t hey wer e

of t he same r ace. See Bat son, 476 U. S. at 97 ( st at i ng t hat " t he

pr osecut or may not r ebut t he def endant ' s pr i ma f aci e case of

di scr i mi nat i on by st at i ng mer el y t hat he chal l enged j ur or s of t he

def endant ' s r ace on t he assumpt i on - - or hi s i nt ui t i ve j udgment - -

t hat t hey woul d be par t i al t o t he def endant because of t hei r shar ed

r ace") . The Supr eme Cour t has l ong r ecogni zed, however , t hat

-15-


16/53

what ever t he def endant ' s r ace, he has " t he r i ght t o be t r i ed by a

j ury whose member s ar e sel ect ed by nondi scr i mi nat or y cr i t er i a. "

Power s v. Ohi o, 499 U. S. 400, 404 ( 1991) ( hol di ng t hat a whi t e

def endant may chal l enge t he excl usi on of bl acks f r om hi s j ur y) .

Accor di ngl y, i t i s equal l y i mper mi ssi bl e f or t he pr osecut or t o use

r ace as a pr oxy f or some ot her t r ai t t hat he bel i eves woul d make

non- whi t e j ur or s l ess l i kel y t han a whi t e j ur or t o convi ct t he

def endant . See i d. at 416 ( " [ R] ace pr ej udi ce st ems f r om var i ous

causes and may mani f est i t sel f i n di f f er ent f or ms. " ) .

To sum up, " t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause f or bi ds t he

pr osecut or t o chal l enge pot ent i al j ur or s sol el y on account of t hei r

r ace, " what ever t he j ust i f i cat i on. Bat son, 476 U. S. at 89. Faced

wi t h a cl ai m t hat such t ar get i ng occur r ed, we must car ef ul l y

exami ne al l of t he per t i nent f act s, gi vi ng due def er ence t o t he

di st r i ct cour t , t o det er mi ne "whet her t he def endant ha[ s] met hi s

bur den of pr ovi ng pur posef ul di scr i mi nat i on on t he par t of t he

St at e. " I d. at 90.

B. The Voir Dire

J ury sel ect i on i n t hi s case consi st ed of a t hree- par t

pr ocess of exami ni ng pot ent i al j ur or s' backgr ounds, f ol l owed by

f our r ounds of per empt or y chal l enges. I ni t i al l y, t he di st r i ct

cour t asked a pool of about f i f t y pot ent i al j ur or s t wo dozen

quest i ons t o ascer t ai n t he i ndi vi dual s' sui t abi l i t y f or t he j ur y.

These i nqui r i es i ncl uded whet her t he veni r e members had f ami l y or

-16-


17/53

cl ose f r i ends empl oyed i n l aw enf or cement , i nvol ved i n an

i mmi gr at i on pr oceedi ng, or char ged wi t h a cr i mi nal of f ense, as wel l

as whet her any schedul i ng i ssues woul d i nt er f er e wi t h t hei r servi ce

on t he j ur y. The pot ent i al j ur or s r ai sed t hei r hands t o show an

af f i r mat i ve answer as each quest i on was asked. I n t he next st ep of

t he pr ocess, f our t een of t hose i ndi vi dual s wer e randoml y chosen t o

si t i n t he j ur y box, and each pot ent i al j ur or who had si gnal ed a

posi t i ve r esponse t o any of t he pr el i mi nar y quest i ons was cal l ed t o

si debar f or i nqui r y about hi s or her r esponses. When t he si debar

i nt er vi ew r esul t ed i n j ur or s bei ng di smi ssed f or cause, t he j ur y

box was r ef i l l ed and t he si debar pr ocess r epeat ed.

Once f our t een j ur or s cl ear ed t he si debar quest i oni ng, t he

di st r i ct cour t moved t o st ep t hr ee: aski ng each of t he j ur or s f or

t hei r occupat i ons and, i f mar r i ed, t hei r spouses' occupat i ons. The

f i r st r ound of per empt or y chal l enges then t ook pl ace. I n r ound

one, t he pr osecut or successf ul l y st r uck thr ee j ur or s: one whose

mother had been deport ed i n 2005, another whose gi r l f r i end

cur r ent l y was i n amnest y pr oceedi ngs, and a l awyer whose pr act i ce

consi st ed pr i mar i l y of cr i mi nal def ense wor k. The pr osecut or ' s

at t empt t o st r i ke a f our t h per son, Dei r dr e Pr i t chet t , dr ew a Bat son

chal l enge f r om def ense counsel because Pr i t chet t was " t he onl y

Af r i can- Amer i can per son i n t he j ur y. " When t he pr osecut or

at t r i but ed t he chal l enge t o Pr i t chet t ' s " r el at i ves who wer e

i nvol ved wi t h cr i mi nal of f enses, " def ense counsel poi nt ed out t hat

-17-


18/53

Pr i t chet t was not cl ose wi t h t hose f ami l y member s and t hat a whi t e

j uror whom t he gover nment di d not st r i ke had a f r i end who had been

i n j ai l . She cr i t i ci zed t he j ust i f i cat i on as a pr et ext f or a r ace-

based mot i ve. The di st r i ct cour t t ol d t he pr osecut or t hat i t was

" i ncl i ned t o agr ee" wi t h Mensah' s counsel : " I don' t see that your

r easons st at ed ar e suf f i ci ent t o over come t he f act t hat she

appar ent l y i s t he onl y per son of col or i n t he whol e veni r e. "

The gover nment t hen wi t hdr ew i t s st r i ke " i n an abundance

of caut i on, " and Ms. Pr i t chet t was seat ed. The pr osecut or ,

however , i mmedi atel y moved t o excl ude an Asi an- Amer i can potent i al

j uror named Yuqi ng Zhang. The def ense agai n obj ect ed on Bat son

gr ounds, argui ng that t he government was at t empt i ng t o excl ude

Zhang f r om t he j ur y based on hi s r ace. The gover nment pr of f er ed

t hat i t sought t o excl ude Zhang because he was a pr of essor at

Bost on Uni ver si t y Medi cal School wi t h an exper t i se i n bi ol ogy and

mi ght be "t oo sci ent i f i c" i n hi s appl i cat i on of t he r easonabl e

doubt st andar d. The di st r i ct cour t over r ul ed t he def ense' s

obj ect i on, and Zhang became the gover nment ' s f i nal st r i ke dur i ng

t he f i r st r ound. The def ense al so exer ci sed f our per empt or y

chal l enges dur i ng t hat r ound. 10

Af t er t he cour t cl er k r e- f i l l ed t he seat s vacat ed by t he

st r uck j ur or s and t he si debar di scussi ons and occupat i on i nqui r i es

10 The di st r i ct cour t di d not al l ow "back st r i kes, " meani ngt hat counsel coul d not st r i ke j ur or s i n l at er r ounds t hat t hey hadaccept ed i n t he ear l i er r ounds.

-18-


19/53

were compl eted, t he second round of per empt ory chal l enges began

wi t h def ense counsel st r i ki ng a pot ent i al j ur or who was a pol i ce

cadet . The government f ol l owed by st r i ki ng a young, si ngl e woman

named Ki mber l y Far i a, and t he def ense t hen st r uck anot her young,

si ngl e woman named Mary Conway. The j ur y box was agai n r e- f i l l ed

by addi ng t hr ee i ndi vi dual s, i ncl udi ng an Asi an- Amer i can woman

named Quyen Di ep. The si debar and occupat i on i nqui r i es f ol l owed,

l eadi ng i nt o the thi r d r ound of per empt or y chal l enges.

The gover nment had t he f i r st opt i on t o chal l enge i n t hi s

r ound, but passed. The def ense t hen st r uck t wo i ndi vi dual s and,

gi ven another oppor t uni t y, t he government chal l enged Di ep, a young,

si ngl e account ant . The def ense agai n obj ected on Batson gr ounds,

not i ng t hat " [ t ] hi s i s t he second Asi an j ur or who' s been seat ed and

t he second Asi an j ur or who[ m] [ t he pr osecut or ] has st r uck. "

Pr ot est i ng t hat t he chal l enge had not hi ng t o do wi t h r ace, t he

pr osecut or not ed t hat Di ep was si ngl e and young. The def ense

decr i ed t he r at i onal e as pr et ext ual , assert i ng t hat t her e wer e

"pl ent y" of si ngl e and young peopl e on t he j ur y and not i ng t hat t he

pr osecut or had now sought t o excl ude both t he onl y Af r i can- Amer i can

and bot h Asi ans. The pr osecut or decl i ned t he cour t ' s i nvi t at i on t o

say more. The j udge t ook a f ew mi nut es t o consi der t he mat t er and,

af t er r esumi ng t he pr oceedi ngs, asked t he pr osecut or t o rest at e hi s

gr ounds f or st r i ki ng Di ep. The pr osecut or responded: "She does

appear t o be young t o me, a young per son, and she' s a young, si ngl e

-19-


20/53

per son. I quest i on her l i f e exper i ence based on t hat J udge. "

Def ense counsel t hen r ei t er at ed t hat she bel i eved t he j ur y al r eady

i ncl uded "qui t e a number of si ngl e peopl e. " She poi nt ed

speci f i cal l y t o Conway, al t hough Conway had not i n f act been seat ed

on t he j ury because she was st r uck by t he def endant .

The cour t al l owed t he chal l enge of Di ep "on t he st at ed

gr ounds of t he gover nment . " The j ur y box agai n was r ef i l l ed, t he

pr el i mi nar i es wer e per f or med, and counsel wer e of f er ed a f our t h

r ound of perempt ory chal l enges. None was exerci sed. Dur i ng t he

ensui ng di scussi on about var i ous t r i al mat t er s, def ense counsel

not ed f or t he r ecor d, i n f ur t her r esponse to t he gover nment ' s

st r i ke of Di ep, t hat t he gover nment had not obj ect ed t o a whi t e

mal e j ur or named Conl ey, t he l ast i ndi vi dual seat ed, who al so was

young and si ngl e. The cour t , i n subsequent l y announci ng t hat

Conl ey woul d be one of t he t wo al t ernates ( because he was t he l ast

j uror cal l ed) , not ed i n an asi de t hat Conl ey was not yet i n t he

j ury box when Di ep was chal l enged.

The cour t r et urned t o t he Bat son i ssue at t he st ar t of

t he next day' s proceedi ngs:

[ J ] ust f or t he r ecor d, wi t h r espect t o t hei mpanel ment and t he Bat son chal l enge t hat wasmade by t he def endant wi t h r espect t o the

admi ssi on of t he pot ent i al j ur or , Mi ss Di ep,dur i ng voi r di r e t hi s Cour t over r ul ed def ensecounsel ' s Bat son obj ect i on t o t he pr osecut or ' suse of a per empt or y chal l enge t o st r i ke Mi ssDi ep . . . on t he al l eged basi s of her r ace.The prosecutor of f er ed a r ace- neut r alexpl anat i on f or st r i ki ng Mi ss Di ep t hat she

-20-


21/53

was young and si ngl e and, as a r esul t , hadl i mi t ed l i f e exper i ence. At t he t i me t heperempt ory st r i ke was exer ci sed, Mi ss Di ep wast he onl y pot ent i al j ur or seat ed i n t he j ur ybox who bot h appear ed t o be young and answer edt hat she was si ngl e.

I n addi t i on, t he pr osecut i on hadpr evi ousl y used a per empt or y chal l enge t ost r i ke Mi ss Ki mber l y Far i a, . . . who al soappear ed t o be young and had answer ed that shewas si ngl e. The Cour t consi der s t hepr osecut i on' s r easoni ng t o be cr edi bl e andsust ai ns t he per empt or y chal l enge.

Al t hough t he cour t di d not r eopen t he i ssue f or f ur t her

consi der at i on, i t al l owed t he at t or neys t o suppl ement t he recor d.

Def ense counsel cl ar i f i ed t hat her obj ect i on was not sol el y t o

Di ep' s excl usi on, but t o t he chal l enge of bot h pot ent i al Asi an

j uror s. She al so r ei t er at ed t hat t he gover nment had al l owed Conl ey

t o r emai n on t he j ur y despi t e a pr of essed obj ect i on t o young,

s i ngl e j ur or s.

The prosecutor counter ed t hat Conl ey was not compar abl e

t o Di ep because t hey had di f f er ent j obs, and he not ed t hat , when

Conl ey was seat ed, t he gover nment was savi ng i t s l ast chal l enge " i n

an abundance of caut i on f or somebody . . . ver y undesi r abl e. "

Def ense counsel quest i oned t he r el i ance on di f f er ent pr of essi ons,

not i ng t hat Di ep was an account ant and Conl ey a f i nanci al anal yst .

The cour t made no f ur t her r ul i ngs and moved on t o ot her mat t er s.

The j ury t hus consi st ed of one Af r i can- Amer i can j uror and el even

whi t e j ur or s.

-21-


22/53

C. Discussion

The f or goi ng r eci t at i on of f act s wel l i l l ust r at es " t he

pr act i cal di f f i cul t y" of di st i ngui shi ng bet ween i mper mi ssi bl e

di scr i mi nat i on i n j ur y sel ect i on and t he pr osecut or ' s l egi t i mat e

excl usi on of j ur or s based on t hei r per sonal char act er i st i cs and

backgr ound. Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at 238. As we shal l expl ai n, bot h

vi ews of t he pr osecut or ' s choi ces ar e pl ausi bl e her e. I n t he end,

however , i t i s t he ver y cl oseness of t he quest i on t hat det er mi nes

t he out come of our i nqui r y.

1. Indications of Discrimination

The numer i c evi dence i n t hi s case i s par t i cul ar l y st r ong

i n suggest i ng t hat r ace was a mot i vat i ng f act or i n t he gover nment ' s

exer ci se of i t s per empt or y chal l enges. The pr osecut or st r uck, or

at t empt ed t o st r i ke, al l of t he non- whi t e member s of t he veni r e.

Bot h Asi an- Amer i cans wer e excl uded f r om t he j ur y, and t he

pr osecut or was pressur ed by t he cour t t o wi t hdr aw t he st r i ke of

Dei r dr e Pr i t chet t - - t he onl y Af r i can- Amer i can. The pr osecut or

al so st r uck t he onl y obvi ousl y Hi spani c i ndi vi dual , Car l os Al ves,

t he j uror whose mot her had been depor t ed i n 2005.

I n addi t i on, t he pr osecut or ' s rat i onal e f or st r i ki ng Di ep

- - t hat she was young and si ngl e - - was f l i msy i n t wo r espect s.

Fi r st , t he pr osecut or f ai l ed t o expl ai n why age and mar i t al st at us

wer e per t i nent f act or s her e. See Bat son, 476 U. S. at 98 ( "The

pr osecut or . . . must ar t i cul at e a neut r al expl anat i on r el at ed t o

-22-


23/53

t he par t i cul ar case t o be t r i ed. " ( emphasi s added) ) . Even af t er

def ense counsel compl ai ned that t he st r i ke appear ed pr et extual

because t here were "pl ent y" of si ngl e and young peopl e on t he j ur y,

t he pr osecut or decl i ned t he di st r i ct cour t ' s of f er t o el abor at e on

hi s r easoni ng. When t he pr osecut or subsequent l y r est at ed hi s

gr ounds f or t he st r i ke at t he cour t ' s r equest , t he pr osecut or added

t hat he "quest i on[ ed] her l i f e exper i ence based on t hat . " Agai n,

however , he dr ew no connect i on between l i mi t ed l i f e exper i ence and

t he cr i me. Al t hough cour t s have accept ed yout h and unmarr i ed

st at us as l egi t i mat e r easons f or st r i ki ng j ur or s, see, e. g. , Ri ce

v. Col l i ns, 546 U. S. 333, 341 ( 2006) ( "I t i s not unr easonabl e t o

bel i eve t he pr osecut or r emai ned wor r i ed that a young per son wi t h

f ew t i es t o t he communi t y mi ght be l ess wi l l i ng t han an ol der , mor e

permanent r esi dent t o i mpose a l engt hy sent ence f or possessi ng a

smal l amount of a cont r ol l ed subst ance. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mack,

78 F. App' x 171, 180 ( 3d Ci r . 2003) ( st at i ng t hat "per empt or y

chal l enges based on age and mar i t al st at us i n t he cont ext of

nar cot i cs cases ar e l ogi cal and l egi t i mat el y r ace- neut r al ") ,

al l owi ng such st r i kes i n t he absence of an ar t i cul at ed, pl ausi bl e

l i nk t o t he cri me at i ssue creat es t he pot ent i al f or a r eadi l y

avai l abl e pr et ext f or di scri mi nat i on.

Second, t he pr osecut or chose not t o exer ci se st r i kes

agai nst at l east t wo pot ent i al j ur or s who, but f or t hei r r ace,

appear ed si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t o Di ep. The pr osecut or passed on bot h

-23-


24/53

Conway, a young, si ngl e woman, and Conl ey, a young, si ngl e man wi t h

a pr of essi on si mi l ar t o Di ep' s ( he was a f i nanci al advi sor , she an

account ant ) . As di scussed above, t he f act t hat a pr osecut or ' s

pr of f er ed r eason f or st r i ki ng a mi nor i t y j ur or coul d have appl i ed

wi t h equal wei ght t o whi t e j ur ors who were not st r uck may support

an i nf er ence of r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. See Snyder , 552 U. S. at

483- 84. Mor eover , al t hough t he pr of f er ed r at i onal e f or st r i ki ng

Zhang - - a concern about t he way a sci ent i st woul d eval uate

r easonabl e doubt - - i s pl ausi bl e, t he subsequent st r i ke of Di ep

cont i nued t he pr osecut or ' s pat t er n of chal l engi ng ever y non- whi t e

j uror and t hus pl aces t hat j ust i f i cat i on i n a di f f er ent l i ght . See

Char l t on, 600 F. 3d at 55 ( Lynch, C. J . , concur r i ng) ( r ecommendi ng "a

second l ook" i n such ci r cumst ances) .

Al so, gi ven t hat t hi s case i nvol ves an i mmi gr at i on

of f ense, we must be sensi t i ve t o t he r aci al st er eot ypes t hat coul d

be at pl ay. For exampl e, t he f act t hat many Asi an- Amer i cans come

f r om i mmi gr ant communi t i es may l ead to t he unwarr ant ed assumpt i on

t hat al l Asi an- Amer i cans have undue sympathy f or non- whi t e

i ndi vi dual s seeki ng t o become Uni t ed St at es ci t i zens. Whi l e

personal exposur e t o t he i mmi gr at i on syst emmay be an appr opr i ate

basi s f or a per empt or y chal l enge, we must t ake car e t o mai nt ai n t he

l i ne bet ween such st r i kes and t hose t hat r el y sol el y on r aci al or

et hni c s t er eot ypes.

-24-


25/53

2. The Non-Discriminatory Inferences

Despi t e our r eservat i ons, we must t ake i nt o account "al l

r el evant ci r cumst ances, " Bat son, 476 U. S. at 96, and mul t i pl e

f act or s gi ve a di f f er ent i mpr essi on when exami ned i n cont ext .

Fi r st , f r oma numer i c per spect i ve, al t hough no Asi an- Amer i cans wer e

l ef t on t he j ur y, t her e wer e onl y two such i ndi vi dual s i n t he

veni r e. Hence, wi t h t he st r i ke of Zhang unexcept i onabl e on i t s

own, t he el i mi nat i on of "al l " Asi an- Amer i cans her e i s subst ant i al l y

di f f er ent f r oma case i n whi ch t he number s are l ar ger and a pat t er n

i s i nescapabl y appar ent i n t he pr osecut or ' s st r i kes. See, e. g. ,

Snyder , 552 U. S. at 476 ( pr osecut or used per empt or y st r i kes t o

el i mi nat e al l f i ve bl ack pr ospect i ve j ur or s) ; Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at

240- 41 (pr osecut or used per empt or y st r i kes f or t en Af r i can- Amer i can

member s of t he veni r e panel , 91 per cent of t hose el i gi bl e) ; Power s,

499 U. S. at 403 ( pr osecut or used seven of t en perempt ory chal l enges

t o st r i ke bl ack member s of t he j ur y panel ) ; Si ms v. Br own, 425 F. 3d

560, 573 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) ( pr osecut or used ei ght of f i r st t wel ve

per empt or y chal l enges t o st r i ke f our Af r i can- Amer i can and f our

Hi spani c veni r e panel i st s, l eavi ng no bl ack j ur or s and one

Hi spani c- sur named i ndi vi dual ) . 11 To be sur e, t he pr osecut or i n t hi s

11 We do not mean t o suggest t hat a Bat son chal l enge cansucceed onl y wher e l arge number s of a pr ot ect ed group have beenexcl uded f r om t he j ur y. I ndeed, "' [ t ] he Const i t ut i on f or bi dsst r i ki ng even a si ngl e pr ospect i ve j ur or f or a di scr i mi nat or ypur pose[ . ] ' " Snyder , 552 U. S. at 478 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.Vasquez- Lopez, 22 F. 3d 900, 902 ( 9t h Ci r . 1994) ) . Our poi nt i sonl y t hat smal l numbers may af f ect t he wei ght of t he numer i c

-25-


26/53

case al so st r uck t he one i dent i f i abl y Hi spani c j ur or , Al ves, and

at t empt ed t o st r i ke t he onl y Af r i can- Amer i can, Pr i t chet t . But t he

Al ves st r i ke was pl ai nl y appr opr i at e f or t he neut r al r eason t hat

hi s mother had been deport ed, and t he pr osecut or both of f ered a

f aci al l y neut r al r eason f or Pr i t chet t ( her i ncar cer at ed f ami l y

members) and di d not persi st . Thus, as i s common, t he numbers

consi der ed i n i sol at i on ar e i nconcl usi ve. See gener al l y Char l t on,

600 F. 3d at 52- 53 ( caut i oni ng agai nst r el i ance on " ' j ust number s

al one' " ( quot i ng Gi r ouar d, 521 F. 3d at 116) ) ; i d. at 55 ( Lynch,

C. J . , concur r i ng) ( not i ng t hat "obj ect i ons based sol el y on

numer i cal ef f ect s ar e i nher ent l y pr obl emat i c") ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Bergodere, 40 F. 3d 512, 516 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( "A def endant who

advances a Bat son ar gument ordi nar i l y shoul d come f orward wi t h

f act s, not j ust number s al one. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) .

Second, t he compar at i ve evi dence i s si mi l ar l y equi vocal .

Mensah ar gues t hat t he pr osecut or ' s expl anat i on t hat he chal l enged

Di ep because she i s young and si ngl e i s bel i ed by the pr osecut or ' s

f ai l ur e t o st r i ke t wo ot her young, si ngl e i ndi vi dual s - - Conway and

Conl ey. I n cont ext , however , t he demogr aphi c equi val ence between

t hose t wo j ur or s and Di ep i s l ess not ewor t hy. The pr osecut or di d

bypass Conway when he had t he oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge her ear l y i n

evi dence, par t i cul ar l y wher e some of t he quest i oned st r i kes appearj ust i f i ed by r ace- neut r al r easons.

-26-


27/53

t he second r ound. He i nst ead exer ci sed hi s f i r st per empt or y st r i ke

i n t hat r ound agai nst Ki mber l y Far i a, whom t he di st r i ct cour t

descr i bed as another young, si ngl e woman. The ver y next st r i ke,

however , was by t he def endant agai nst Conway. That s t r i ke coul d

f ai r l y be descr i bed as pr edi ct abl e gi ven t he pr of essi ons of

Conway' s f ami l y member s: an assi st ant di st r i ct at t or ney ( her

f at her ) , a j udge ( her gr andf at her ) , at t or neys ( an aunt and uncl e) ,

and a pol i ce of f i cer ( anot her uncl e) . The pr osecut or , t her ef or e,

had l i t t l e oppor t uni t y - - or i ncent i ve - - t o st r i ke Conway bef or e

t he def endant el i mi nat ed her .

Mor eover , t he st r i ke of Far i a appear ed consi st ent wi t h

t he pr osecut or ' s "young and si ngl e" r at i onal e f or st r i ki ng Di ep.

Far i a, a t eacher ' s assi st ant , had answer ed none of t he openi ng

quest i ons af f i r mat i vel y and, hence, had no ot her r eveal ed

obj ect i onabl e char act er i st i cs. Conl ey, meanwhi l e, was seat ed when

t he government had onl y one r emai ni ng st r i ke. 12 The pr osecut or ' s

expl anat i on t hat he was bei ng caut i ous about exer ci si ng hi s f i nal

per emptor y chal l enge, whi ch woul d have meant seat i ng a repl acement

j uror whomt he prosecutor woul d have no oppor t uni t y t o st r i ke, i s

on i t s f ace pl ausi bl e. See Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at 249- 50 ( not i ng t he

pr osecut or s' need "t o exer ci se pr udent r est r ai nt i n usi ng st r i kes"

l at e i n t he j ur y- sel ect i on pr ocess) . The pr osecut or r easonabl y

12 The government had a t otal of seven perempt ory st r i kes; t hedef endant had el even.

-27-


28/53

coul d have chosen t o st i ck wi t h a young, si ngl e f i nanci al anal yst

t o avoi d t he r i sk of a j ur or who, f or exampl e, had a f ami l y member

or cl ose f r i end i nvol ved i n i mmi gr at i on pr oceedi ngs - - as had t wo

pr i or veni r e member s whom t he pr osecut or had st r uck ( Al ves,

descr i bed above, and J oseph Lear y, whose gi r l f r i end was i n the

pr ocess of " f i ght i ng f or amnest y" f r om Hondur as) . 13

3. The District Court's Evaluation

Gi ven t he compet i ng i nf erences t hat coul d be dr awn f r om

t he pr osecut or ' s exer ci se of per empt or y chal l enges, t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s on- t he- scene assessment l ooms l ar ge. To i t s cr edi t , t he

cour t t ook t he Bat son i ssue ser i ousl y and car ef ul l y consi der ed t he

ci r cumst ances. I t bal ked at t he st r i ke of Pr i t chet t and l i kewi se

hesi t at ed when def ense counsel obj ect ed t o t he st r i ke of Di ep,

hal t i ng t he pr oceedi ngs and t hen aski ng t he pr osecut or t o rest at e

hi s gr ounds f or t he st r i ke. Bef or e al l owi ng t he st r i ke, t he cour t

pr obed def ense counsel ' s obj ect i on t hat ot her si ngl e young per sons

had been seat ed. I t r evi si t ed i t s i ni t i al r ul i ng t he next day,

maki ng expl i ci t i t s pr evi ous i mpl i ci t f i ndi ng t hat t he pr osecut or

had genui nel y rel i ed on Di ep' s age and mar i t al st at us.

Al t hough we commend t he cour t ' s di l i gence, i t mi ght

i deal l y have gone a st ep f ur t her . The cour t di d not expl i ci t l y

r espond t o def ense counsel ' s r epeat ed ur gi ng t hat t he st r i kes of

13 Two potent i al j ur ors who had not yet been seated hadr esponded af f i r mat i vel y when asked t o i ndi cat e i f t hey had such ar el at i onshi p.

-28-


29/53

bot h Asi an- Amer i cans be eval uat ed t oget her . That gap, i n

combi nat i on wi t h t he pr osecut or ' s f ai l ur e t o expl ai n how t he young-

and- si ngl e r at i onal e r el at ed i n any way t o t he par t i cul ar s of t hi s

case, l eaves us wi t h some l i nger i ng concer n. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Per ez, 35 F. 3d 632, 636 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( ur gi ng t r i al j udges not

onl y to st at e whet her t hey "f i nd[ ] t he pr of f er ed r eason f or a

chal l enged st r i ke t o be f aci al l y race neut r al or i nher ent l y

di scr i mi nat or y, " but al so "why [ t hey] choose[ ] t o cr edi t or

di scredi t t he gi ven expl anat i on") . Yet , t hi s i s not a case wher e

"[ t ] he st r i kes cor r el at e[ d] wi t h no f act as wel l as t hey cor r el at e

wi t h r ace. " Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at 266. Rat her , t he evi dence per mi t s

compet i ng pl ausi bl e i nt er pr et at i ons. See Lar a, 181 F. 3d at 195.

Gi ven t he def endant ' s bur den of persuasi on, and t he def erence owed

t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s assessment s of cr edi bi l i t y and demeanor , we

cannot concl ude t hat t he cour t cl ear l y er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat no

i mpr oper di scr i mi nat i on occur r ed. See Ri ce, 546 U. S. at 343

( Br eyer , J . , concur r i ng) ( obser vi ng t hat appel l at e cour t s "must [ ]

gr ant t he t r i al cour t s consi der abl e l eeway i n appl yi ng Bat son"

because, "i n a bor der l i ne case, " t he t r i al j udge i s best si t uat ed

t o deci de i f "a pr osecut or ' s hesi t at i on or cont r adi ct i on r ef l ect

( a) decept i on, or ( b) t he di f f i cul t y of pr ovi di ng a r at i onal r eason

f or an i nst i nct i ve deci si on") ; Lar a, 181 F. 3d at 195 ( " [ W] hen t he

evi dence gi ves r i se t o compet i ng i nt er pr et at i ons, each pl ausi bl e,

-29-


30/53

t he f act f i nder ' s choi ce bet ween t hem cannot be cl ear l y

er r oneous. ") .

We t her ef or e af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s rej ecti on of

appel l ant ' s Bat son chal l enge.

IV.

Mensah ar gues t hat t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons gi ven by t he

di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y def i ned mul t i pl e essent i al el ement s of

t he cr i mes i mpl i cat ed i n t he char ge that he vi ol at ed 18 U. S. C.

1425( a) . Sect i on 1425( a) i t sel f makes i t a cr i me t o knowi ngl y

pr ocur e, "cont r ar y t o l aw, t he nat ur al i zat i on of any per son. " The

i ndi ct ment al l eged that Mensah knowi ngl y pr ocur ed nat ur al i zat i on

"cont r ary t o l aw" because he had knowi ngl y made f al se st at ement s

under oat h i n hi s appl i cat i on and i nt er vi ew, i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1015( a) . The i dent i f i ed f al se st at ement s wer e t hat ( 1) he

had never knowi ngl y commi t t ed any cr i me f or whi ch he had not been

ar r est ed and ( 2) he had not used ot her names whi l e he was a

per manent r esi dent , t he l at t er asser t i on i mpl i ed f r omhi s r esponse

"N/ A" t o t he appl i cat i on quest i on about other names. 14 Accordi ng

t o t he government , t he cr i me t hat Mensah f al sel y deni ed commi t t i ng

was knowi ngl y maki ng a f al se or f r audul ent st atement i n a mat t er

wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he Uni t ed St at es, i n vi ol at i on of 18

14 The "quest i on" was i n t he f or m of a r equest f or " [ o] t hernames used si nce you became a per manent r esi dent ( i ncl udi ng mai denname) . "

-30-


31/53

U. S. C. 1001( a) ( 2) . The under l yi ng st at ement was t he f r audul ent

vi sa appl i cat i on Mensah f i l ed under t he Appi ah name.

Mensah and t he government submi t t ed numer ous pr oposed

j ury i nst r uct i ons t o t he cour t t o cover t he el ement s of sect i on

1425( a) i n t he cont ext of t hi s l ayer ed t r i o of cr i mes. Mensah

asser t s t hr ee er r or s i n t he cour t ' s choi ces: ( 1) i mpr oper l y

r ef usi ng to gi ve hi s r equest ed i nst r uct i on on when a st at ement may

be deemed " f al se, " ( 2) er r oneousl y def i ni ng "under oat h, " and ( 3)

gi vi ng an "unl awf ul pr ocur ement " i nst r uct i on that i mper mi ssi bl y

r el i eved t he gover nment of i t s bur den of pr oof as t o that el ement .

We consi der each of t hese i n t ur n.

A. The False Statement Instruction

Focusi ng on hi s " N/ A" r esponse, Mensah cont ends t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t , by gi vi ng an i nadequat e expl anat i on of when a

st atement may be f ound "f al se, " mi sst ated t he government ' s bur den

t o pr ove f al si t y. The cour t i nst r ucted t he j ur y t hat " [ a]

st at ement i s f al se i f i t was unt r ue when made. " Mensah asser t s

t hat t he cour t shoul d have gi ven a much more el aborate descr i pt i on

of f al si t y, t el l i ng t he j ur or s, i nt er al i a, t hat t he gover nment

needed t o pr ove t hat "what he sai d was f al se, " t hat " [ i ] t i s

i nsuf f i ci ent f or t he gover nment t o pr ove t hat hi s st at ement i mpl i ed

somet hi ng t hat was not t r ue, " and t hat pr oof of a f al se st at ement

r equi r es "pr o[of ] beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he st atement was

f al se under any obj ect i vel y reasonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he

-31-


32/53

quest i on and answer . " Mensah al so pr oposed an ambi gui t y

i nst r uct i on, whi ch i ncl uded t he f ol l owi ng: "Even an answer t hat i s

del i ber at el y evasi ve or mi sl eadi ng i s not f al se, unl ess i t i s f al se

on i t s f ace. Nor i s an unr esponsi ve answer f al se. I t i s up t o t he

per son aski ng t he quest i on t o cl ar i f y an ambi guous or evasi ve

answer . "

A t r i al cour t ' s r ej ect i on of pr oposed i nst r uct i onal

l anguage i s rever si bl e er r or " onl y i n t he ' r el at i vel y r ar e case' i n

whi ch ' t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on was ( 1) subst ant i vel y cor r ect ; ( 2)

not subst ant i al l y cover ed el sewher e i n t he char ge; and ( 3)

concer ned a suf f i ci ent l y i mpor t ant poi nt t hat t he f ai l ur e t o gi ve

i t ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he def endant ' s abi l i t y t o pr esent hi s or her

def ense. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzal ez, 570 F. 3d 16, 21 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pr i gmor e, 243 F. 3d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) ) . Thi s i s not such a case.

Mensah ar gues, i n ef f ect , t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have advi sed t he j ur y t hat hi s "N/ A" r epl y coul d not be f ound f al se

unl ess i t was l i t er al l y unt r ue, and t hat i t was not enough t o f i nd

t hat hi s r esponse was mi sl eadi ng, evasi ve, unr esponsi ve, or

ambi guous. Such an i nst r uct i on, however , woul d have been at l east

mi sl eadi ng, and ar guabl y i ncor r ect . I mpr eci si on or i ncompl et eness

i n an answer t o a st r ai ght f or war d i nqui r y - - such as t he r equest

f or "ot her names used" - - does not f or ecl ose a f i ndi ng of f al si t y.

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Boski c, 545 F. 3d 69, 87 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

-32-


33/53

( not i ng t hat a j ur y can pr oper l y f i nd f al si t y based on i ncompl et e

answers) . Mensah does not argue t hat t he quest i on he was asked

about other names was ambi guous, and t heref ore hi s i nvocat i on of

Uni t ed St at es v. Rowe, 144 F. 3d 15 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) , does not hel p

hi m. See i d. at 21 ( " [ I ] n a f al se st at ement pr osecut i on, an answer

t o a quest i on i s not f r audul ent i f t her e i s an obj ect i vel y

r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he quest i on under whi ch t he answer i s

not even f al se. " ( emphasi s added) ) . I n addi t i on, Mensah has never

cl ai med t hat "N/ A" was a l i t er al l y t r ue stat ement t hat coul d not

pr oper l y be f ound "f al se on i t s f ace. "15

Hence, i nst r ucti ng t he j ur y on l i t er al t r ut h or f al si t y,

ambi gui t y, or any si mi l ar l i ngui st i c def ense woul d have r un t he

r i sk of sendi ng t he j ur y of f t r ack. I ndeed, t he gover nment ' s

argument coul d not have been more st r ai ght f orward: because Mensah

had cr eat ed a second i dent i t y as Appi ah, he made a f al se st atement

when he wr ot e that t he i nqui r y about ot her names was "not

appl i cabl e. " On t hi s recor d, t hen, t he onl y per t i nent f ocus of t he

j ury' s del i ber at i ons - - as t he di st r i ct cour t proper l y i nst r uct ed

- - was t o determi ne whether "N/ A" was an "unt r ue [ st atement ] when

made. "

15 The absence of such a cl ai m r ender s i napt hi s rel i ance onBr onst on v. Uni t ed St at es, 409 U. S. 352 ( 1973) , and Uni t ed St at esv. Fi nucan, 708 F. 2d 838 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) , r egar dl ess of whet her t hel i t er al t r ut h def ense ar t i cul at ed i n t hose cases may be"appr opr i at el y i nvoked out si de t he cont ext of adver saryquest i oni ng, " Boski c, 545 F. 3d at 92.

-33-


34/53

Mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ej ect i on of hi s pr oposed

i nst r uct i on di d not pr event Mensah f r om pr esent i ng hi s t heor y of

f al si t y t o t he j ur y. Speci f i cal l y wi t h r espect t o "N/ A, " counsel

ar gued t hat i t coul d not be a f al se st at ement because hi s I NS

i nt er vi ewer , Sauci er , t est i f i ed t hat he di d not know what t he

abbr evi at i on meant , and Sauci er never asked Mensah t o expl ai n hi s

r esponse. I n ef f ect , counsel asked t he j ur y t o concl ude t hat "N/ A"

f or Mensah had no par t i cul ar meani ng - - and coul d t her ef or e not be

deemed " f al se. " I n t hi s r egar d, counsel st at ed: "Now, ' N/ A' sounds

l i ke somethi ng a l awyer mi ght put down and not have revi ewed unt i l

af t er Mr . Mensah si gned t he appl i cat i on. " The j ur or s thus hear d

t he gi st of Mensah' s ar gument t hat he coul d not be f ound gui l t y

unl ess "what he sai d was f al se. "

Accor di ngl y, we f i nd nei t her er r or i n, nor har mf r om, t he

cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve Mensah' s request ed f al si t y i nst r uct i on.

B. The Definition of "Under Oath"

Mensah asser t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o pr oper l y

i nst r uct t he j ur y on t he el ement of sect i on 1015( a) r equi r i ng t hat

t he pr ohi bi t ed f al se st at ement be made "under oat h. "16 He mai ntai ns

t hat a st at ement i s made "under oat h" onl y i f i t i s gi ven af t er a

16 For conveni ence, we r epeat her e the t ext of sect i on 1015( a) :

Whoever knowi ngl y makes any f al se st at ement under oat h,i n any case, pr oceedi ng, or mat t er r el at i ng t o, or under ,or by vi r t ue of any l aw of t he Uni t ed St at es r el at i ng t onat ur al i zat i on, ci t i zenshi p, or r egi str y of al i ens [ i sgui l t y of a cri me] .

-34-


35/53

ver bal war ni ng, f r om an aut hor i zed per son, t hat f al si t y wi l l be

pr osecut ed as per j ur y. The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hat nar r ow

const r uct i on of t he r equi r ement , and i nst r uct ed t he j ur y as

f ol l ows:

A st atement i s made under oat h i f t hedef endant t ook an oat h t o t est i f y t r ul y bef or ean agency[ ] aut hor i zed by l aw t o admi ni st eroat hs or i f t he def endant , under penal t y ofper j ur y, subscr i bed as t r ue wr i t t eni nf ormat i on submi t t ed t o t he agency.

Al t hough Mensah acknowl edges t hat t he i nst r uct i on as gi ven f ol l owed

accept ed pr act i ce, see Leonar d B. Sand, et al . , 2- 33 Moder n Feder al

J ury I nst r uct i ons- Cr i mi nal 33. 02 ( I nst r uct i on 33- 11) , he cl ai ms

t hat i t i mpr oper l y "i gnor e[ d] t he di st i nct i on bet ween swear i ng an

oat h bef or e a qual i f i ed of f i ci al and endor si ng a document under a

wr i t t en per j ur y war ni ng. "

We di sagr ee t hat t he di st i nct i on between a sworn oat h

f ol l owi ng a ver bal war ni ng and a wr i t t en decl ar at i on expr essl y

made subj ect t o per j ur y mat t ers here. Al t hough maki ng a st atement

"under oat h" commonl y i s associ at ed wi t h a ver bal swear i ng - - such

as t hat t r adi t i onal l y r equi r ed of wi t nesses at a t r i al - - f eder al

l aw r ecogni zes t hat oat hs may be i n wr i t i ng and t r eat s a wr i t t en

st at ement " subscr i bed . . . as t r ue under penal t y of per j ur y" as

equi val ent t o such a penned oat h. 28 U. S. C. 1746.17

Mensah ci t es

17 Sect i on 1746, wi t h hi ghl i ght i ng r ef l ect i ng t he assumpt i ont hat an oat h may be i n wr i t i ng, st at es i n per t i nent par t asf ol l ows:

-35-


36/53

no pr ecedent hol di ng t hat t he oath el ement of sect i on 1015( a) may

be sat i sf i ed onl y wi t h pr oof of a ver bal war ni ng or oat h, and we

see no r at i onal e f or excl udi ng t he oat h r equi r ement i n t hat

pr ovi si on f r om t he r each of sect i on 1746.

I ndeed, t he gener i c l egal def i ni t i on of an "oat h" makes

no r ef er ence t o a ver bal act . Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y def i nes an

oat h as " [ a] sol emn decl arat i on, accompani ed by a swear i ng t o God

or a r ever ed per son or t hi ng, t hat one' s st at ement i s t r ue or t hat

one wi l l be bound t o a pr omi se. " Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 1101 ( 8t h

ed. 2004) . Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 603, whi ch st at es t hat a

wi t ness "must gi ve an oat h or af f i r mat i on t o t est i f y tr ut hf ul l y, "18

i s si mi l ar l y gener al . The Rul e pr ovi des t hat t he r equi si t e

decl ar at i on "must be i n a f or mdesi gned t o i mpr ess t hat dut y on t he

wi t ness' s consci ence" - - but does not say t hat onl y a ver bal

Wherever , under any l aw of t he Uni t ed St ates or under anyr ul e, r egul at i on, or der , or r equi r ement made pur suant t ol aw, any mat t er t hat i s r equi r ed or per mi t t ed t o besuppor t ed, evi denced, est abl i shed, or pr oved by t he swor ndecl ar at i on, ver i f i cat i on, cer t i f i cat e, st at ement , oat h,or af f i davi t , i n wr i t i ng of t he per son maki ng t he same( ot her t han a deposi t i on, or an oat h of of f i ce, or anoat h r equi r ed t o be t aken bef or e a speci f i ed of f i ci alot her t han a not ar y publ i c) , such mat t er may, wi t h l i kef or ce and ef f ect , be suppor t ed, evi denced, est abl i shed,or pr oved by the unswor n decl ar at i on, cer t i f i cat e,ver i f i cat i on, or st at ement , i n wr i t i ng of such per son

whi ch i s subscr i bed by hi m, as t r ue under penal t y ofper j ur y, and dat ed . . . .

18 Bl ack' s def i nes an "af f i r mat i on" as "[ a] pl edge equi val entt o an oat h but wi t hout r ef erence t o a supr eme bei ng or t o' swear i ng. ' " Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 64. Under f eder al l aw,r ef er ence t o an oat h i ncl udes an af f i r mat i on. See 1 U. S. C. 1.

-36-


37/53

war ni ng or r esponse suf f i ces. Hence, i t appear s t hat t he i nqui r y

i nt o whet her an oat h has been gi ven i s r out i nel y t r eated as a

quest i on of subst ance r at her t han f or m: " [ i t ] t ur ns on whet her t he

decl ar ant expr essed t he f act t hat he or she i s i mpr essed wi t h t he

sol emni t y and i mport ance of hi s or her words and of t he pr omi se t o

be t r ut hf ul , i n mor al , r el i gi ous, or l egal t er ms. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Bueno- Vargas, 383 F. 3d 1104, 1110 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) .

Sect i on 1746 thus r ef l ect s an accept ed vi ew of t he "under

oat h" r equi r ement i n al l owi ng a wr i t t en st atement made under

penal t y of per j ur y t o subst i t ut e f or a f or mal oat h. See Bueno-

Vargas, 383 F. 3d at 1111 ( hol di ng t hat "si gni ng a st atement under

penal t y of per j ur y sat i sf i es t he st andar d f or an oat h or

af f i r mat i on") ; 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Sear ch and Sei zur e 4. 3( e) , at

659 ( 5t h ed. 2012) ( not i ng t hat , t o sat i sf y the Four t h Amendment ' s

"Oat h or af f i r mat i on" cl ause, "t he ' t r ue t est ' i s whet her t he

pr ocedur es f ol l owed were such ' t hat per j ur y coul d be char ged

t her e[ o] n i f any mat er i al al l egat i on cont ai ned t her ei n i s f al se' "

( quot i ng Si mon v. St ate, 515 P. 2d 1161, 1165 ( Okl a. Cr i m. App.

1973) ) . Mensah si gned t he f ol l owi ng st at ement on hi s

nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on: "I cer t i f y . . . under penal t y of

per j ur y under t he l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca t hat t hi s

appl i cat i on, and t he evi dence submi t t ed wi t h i t , i s al l t r ue and

cor r ect . " Gi ven sect i on 1746 and t he ot her l egal aut hor i t y

descri bed above, i t i s pl ai n t hat t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y

-37-


38/53

i nst r uct ed t he j ur y on t he "oat h" el ement of sect i on 1015( a) . Cf .

Bueno- Vargas, 383 F. 3d at 1112 ( "Because [ t he decl arant ] gave the

St atement under penal t y of per j ur y, [ he] knew t hat he was maki ng a

sol emn pr omi se . . . t hat al l t he i nf or mat i on he was provi di ng was

t r ue and cor r ect . ") . 19

C. The Unlawful Procurement Instruction

The cent r al el ement of Mensah' s cr i me of convi ct i on, 18

U. S. C. 1425( a) , i s t he knowi ng "pr ocur e[ ment ] , cont r ar y t o l aw, "

of nat ur al i zat i on. Mensah' s pr oposed i nst r uct i on on unl awf ul

pr ocur ement was as f ol l ows:

To est abl i sh t hi s el ement [ t hatdef endant pr ocur ed nat ur al i zat i on as a r esul tof t he f al se t est i mony] t he government mustpr ove t hat def endant obt ai ned Uni t ed St at esci t i zenshi p as a r esul t of t hemi sr epr esent at i ons al l eged i n t he I ndi ct ment .Thi s means t hat t he gover nment must prove t hati f t he def endant had pr ovi ded t he i mmi gr at i onaut hor i t i es wi t h t r ut hf ul evi dence, t he

aut hor i t i es woul d have determi ned t hat he wasstat ut or i l y i nel i gi bl e f or c i t i zenshi p.

The cour t i nst ead gave t he f ol l owi ng i nst r uct i on:

[ T] he government must pr ove t hat i f t hedef endant had pr ovi ded t he I mmi gr at i onaut hor i t i es wi t h t r ut hf ul i nf or mat i on i t woul dhave r ai sed a f ai r i nf er ence t hat def endantwas not el i gi bl e f or nat ur al i zat i on.

19 As t he government poi nt s out , Mensah di d make at l east onef al se st at ement subj ect t o a ver bal oat h. Sauci er , t he i mmi gr at i onof f i cer , admi ni st er ed an oat h at t he out set of Mensah' snat ur al i zat i on i nt er vi ew. Mensah st at ed dur i ng t hat i nt er vi ew t hathe had never knowi ngl y commi t t ed a cr i me f or whi ch he had not beenar r est ed.

-38-


39/53

Mensah ar gues t hat t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i on was f l awed

because t he j ur or s shoul d have been t ol d t hat t hey needed t o f i nd

a "but f or" connect i on between any mi sr epr esent at i ons and t he gr ant

of ci t i zenshi p - - and not mer el y t hat i t woul d be "f ai r t o i nf er "

such a connect i on. He asser t s t hat t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i on

i mpr oper l y shi f t ed t he bur den of pr oof by i ncl udi ng an evi dent i ar y

pr esumpt i on i n f avor of t he gover nment , al l owi ng convi ct i on wi t hout

a showi ng t hat he had i n f act pr ocur ed nat ur al i zat i on "cont r ar y t o

l aw. " Mensah argues t hat t he government needed t o prove beyond a

r easonabl e doubt ( 1) t hat he was i nel i gi bl e f or ci t i zenshi p, ( 2)

how he was i nel i gi bl e, and ( 3) t he al l eged mi sr epr esent at i ons t hat

obscur ed t hi s i nel i gi bi l i t y.

I n r ej ect i ng Mensah' s i nst r uct i on, t he di st r i ct cour t

r el i ed on Kungys v. Uni t ed St at es, 485 U. S. 759 ( 1988) , a f r act ur ed

deci si on i n whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t consi der ed, i nt er al i a, when a

mi sr epr esent at i on i s "mat er i al " i n t he cont ext of nat ur al i zat i on

chal l enges and when such a mi sr epr esent at i on "pr ocur ed" a

nat ur al i zat i on cer t i f i cat e wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he st at ut e. 20

The Cour t maj or i t y concl uded t hat t he mat er i al i t y i nqui r y was

20 The st at ut e at i ssue i n Kungys was a ci vi l pr ovi si on, 8U. S. C. 1451( a) , whi ch r equi r es r evocat i on of ci t i zenshi p when

nat ur al i zat i on was "i l l egal l y pr ocur ed or [ was] pr ocur ed byconceal ment of a mat er i al f act or by wi l l f ul mi sr epr esent at i on. "As not ed above, t he cr i mi nal st at ut e at i ssue her e pr ovi des t hat" [ w] hoever knowi ngl y pr ocur es or at t empt s t o pr ocur e, cont r ar y t ol aw, t he nat ur al i zat i on of any per son, or document ar y or ot herevi dence of nat ur al i zat i on or of ci t i zenshi p" i s gui l t y of a cri me.18 U. S. C. 1425( a) .

-39-


40/53

"whet her t he mi sr epr esent at i on or conceal ment . . . had a nat ur al

t endency t o af f ect[ ] t he of f i ci al deci si on. " I d. at 771; see al so

i d. at 772 ( descr i bi ng t he i nqui r y as " whet her [ t he conceal ment s or

mi sr epr esent at i ons] had a nat ur al t endency t o i nf l uence t he

deci si ons of t he I mmi gr at i on and Nat ur al i zat i on Ser vi ce") .

The mor e compl ex par t of Kungys was t he di scussi on on

what must be pr oved, i n addi t i on t o mat er i al i t y, t o est abl i sh t hat

ci t i zenshi p was "pr ocur ed" t hr ough mi sr epr esent at i ons. The Sevent h

Ci r cui t has summar i zed wel l t he Cour t ' s spl i nt er ed r esponse t o t hat

i nqui r y:

The Kungys maj or i t y hel d t hat t her e ar e" f our i ndependent r equi r ement s" t o t he of f enseof pr ocur i ng ci t i zenshi p by mi sr epr esent at i on:" t he nat ur al i zed ci t i zen must havemi sr epr esent ed or conceal ed some f act , t hemi sr epr esent at i on or conceal ment must havebeen wi l l f ul , t he f act must have beenmat er i al , and t he nat ur al i zed ci t i zen musthave pr ocur ed ci t i zenshi p as a r esul t of t hemi sr epr esent at i on of conceal ment . " Kungys,485 U. S. at 767. So a maj or i t y of t heJ ust i ces agr eed t hat "mat er i al i t y" and"pr ocur ement " are separate el ement s, andsat i sf act i on of one does not necessar i l y meansat i sf act i on of t he ot her . A maj or i t y al soagr eed that , at a mi ni mum, t he procurementr equi r ement "demands . . . t hat ci t i zenshi p beobt ai ned as a r esul t of t he appl i cat i onpr ocess i n whi ch t he mi sr epr esent at i ons orconceal ment s were made. " I d. at 776. TheCour t spl i t , however , over what el se

pr ocur ement means. J ust i ce St evens, speaki ngf or t wo others, advocat ed what amount s t o a"but f or " t est - - t hat t he gover nment has t oest abl i sh t hat ci t i zenshi p woul d not have beenconf er r ed but f or t he mi sr epr esent at i on.J ust i ce Scal i a, j oi ned by t wo ot her s, r ej ect edt hi s const r uct i on because i t woul d make t he

-40-


41/53

mat er i al i t y r equi r ement meani ngl ess,"r equi r i ng, i n addi t i on t o di st or t i on of t hedeci si on [ ( pr ocur ement ) ] , a nat ur al t endencyt o di stor t the deci s i on [ ( mat er i al i t y) ] . " I d.But J ust i ce Scal i a and company di d agr ee t hatpr ocur ement r equi r es mor e than j ust obt ai ni ng

ci t i zenshi p "as a r esul t of t he appl i cat i onpr ocess i n whi ch t he mi sr epr esent at i on orconceal ment s were made. " To t hem, proof of amat er i al mi sr epr esent at i on cr eat ed apr esumpt i on t hat ci t i zenshi p was procur ed ont hat basi s. However , t he ci t i zen coul d r ebutt hat pr esumpt i on by showi ng that she wasact ual l y el i gi bl e f or ci t i zenshi p. J ust i ceBr ennan wr ote a separate concur r ence j oi ni ngi n J ust i ce Scal i a' s opi ni on t o make acont r ol l i ng pl ur al i t y. J ust i ce Br ennan' scont r ol l i ng opi ni on st r essed t hat ci t i zenshi pi s a "most pr eci ous r i ght " and added a morer estr i ct i ve gl oss t o J ust i ce Scal i a' s vi ew.I d. at 783 ( Br ennan J . , concur r i ng) . Al t houghJ ust i ce Br ennan agr eed t hat a mat er i alf al sehood can r ai se a pr esumpt i on ofi nel i gi bi l i t y, he sai d t hat pr esumpt i on doesnot ar i se unl ess t he government pr oducesevi dence suf f i ci ent t o r ai se a "f ai r i nf er enceof i nel i gi bi l i t y. " I d. At t he end of t heday, t hen, t he gover nment onl y wi ns i f i tshows t hat t he ci t i zen mi sr epr esent ed amat er i al f act and i t i s "f ai r t o i nf er t hatt he ci t i zen was actual l y i nel i gi bl e. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Lat chi n, 554 F. 3d 709, 713- 14 ( 7t h Ci r . 2009)

( ci t at i ons al t er ed) . The Sevent h Ci r cui t obser ved t hat " [ t ] hi s

r eadi ng of Kungys i s consi st ent . . . wi t h ever y f eder al appel l at e

deci si on appl yi ng Kungys t o a pr osecut i on under 18 U. S. C.

1425( a) . " I d. at 714 n. 4 ( l i st i ng cases) ; see al so, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Al f er ahi n, 433 F. 3d 1148, 1155 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( accept i ng

Kungys as appl i cabl e to a pr osecut i on under 1425( a) ) .

-41-


42/53

The di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s case adopt ed J ust i ce Br ennan' s

appr oach, r equi r i ng t he gover nment t o est abl i sh "a f ai r i nf er ence

t hat [ t he] def endant was not el i gi bl e f or nat ur al i zat i on. " Mensah,

however , mai nt ai ns t hat Kungys i s i napposi t e i n cr i mi nal cases. He

asser t s t hat t he government ' s bur den t o pr ove the el ement s of

sect i on 1425( a) beyond a reasonabl e doubt can be met onl y wi t h

pr oof t hat he was i n f act i nel i gi bl e f or nat ur al i zat i on when he

became a ci t i zen - - i . e. , t he "but f or " appr oach advocat ed by a

mi nor i t y i n Kungys.

The di st i nct i on Mensah at t empts t o draw bet ween ci vi l and

cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y does not wor k, however , because t he Supr eme

Cour t has equated t he government ' s bur den of pr oof i n

denat ur al i zat i on pr oceedi ngs - - t he pr oduct i on of "cl ear ,

unequi vocal and convi nci ng evi dence" - - wi t h t he beyond- a-

r easonabl e- doubt st andar d of cr i mi nal cases:

[ B] ecause of t he gr ave consequences i nci dentt o denat ur al i zat i on pr oceedi ngs we have hel dt hat a bur den r est s on the Government t o pr ovei t s char ges i n such cases by cl ear ,unequi vocal and convi nci ng evi dence whi ch doesnot l eave t he i ssue i n doubt . Thi s bur den i ssubst ant i al l y i dent i cal wi t h t hat r equi r ed i ncr i mi nal cases - - pr oof beyond a reasonabl edoubt .

Kl appr ot t v. Uni t ed St at es, 335 U. S. 601, 612 ( 1949) ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ; see al so Kungys, 485 U. S. at 795 ( St evens, J . , concur r i ng

i n t he j udgment ) ( not i ng t hat " t he f act or s t hat suppor t t he

i mposi t i on of so heavy a bur den ar e l ar gel y t he same i n bot h

-42-


43/53

cont exts" ) . Thus, we ar e per suaded t hat t he " f ai r i nf er ence"

r equi r ement ar i si ng f r omKungys suf f i ces i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext as

wel l . See Lat chi n, 554 F. 3d at 713 n. 3 ( not i ng t hat t he

di st i ncti on bet ween t he ci vi l and cri mi nal st at ut es i s "t r i vi al "

gi ven t hat "bot h r equi r e a mat er i al mi sr epr esent at i on and

pr ocur ement of ci t i zenshi p") .

I mpor t ant l y, t he bur den of pr ovi ng unl awf ul pr ocur ement

under t he "Kungys i nst r uct i on" r emai ns wi t h t he government . Here,

t he j ur y was t ol d t hat t he gover nment "must pr ove t hat i f t he

def endant had pr ovi ded i mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i es wi t h t r ut hf ul

i nf or mat i on i t woul d have r ai sed a f ai r i nf er ence t hat [ he] was not

el i gi bl e f or nat ur al i zat i on. " The gover nment poi nt s out t hat t he

cour t di d not t el l t he j ur or s to pr esume i nel i gi bi l i t y i f t he

gover nment pr oved onl y t hat he had l i ed dur i ng t he nat ur al i zat i on

pr ocess, t her eby creat i ng a mandat or y pr esumpt i on t hat r el i eved t he

government of i t s bur den of pr ovi ng unl awf ul pr ocur ement . Rather ,

t he i nst r uct i on pr oper l y demanded t hat t he government pr ove a

causat i ve l i nk bet ween Mensah' s l i es and hi s el i gi bi l i t y, al bei t at

a l ower l evel of cer t ai nt y t han Mensah want ed. As al ways, of

cour se, t he gover nment ' s bur den i s t o make t he requi si t e showi ng

beyond a r easonabl e doubt . I n t hi s cont ext , t hen, t he gover nment ' s

bur den was t o pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he t r ut hf ul

i nf or mat i on woul d have r ai sed a "f ai r i nf er ence" of i nel i gi bi l i t y

f or nat ur al i zat i on.

-43-


44/53

Hence, we hol d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n

i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y on unl awf ul pr ocur ement .

V.

At t he cl ose of t he government ' s evi dence, Mensah moved

f or j udgment of acqui t t al under Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e

29. He ar gued, i nt er al i a, t hat t he evi dence adduced by t he

gover nment was i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove t hat he ( 1) made t he

st at ement s i n hi s nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on "under oat h, " ( 2) made

a f al se st atement by respondi ng "N/ A" when asked i f he had used

other names, and ( 3) had knowi ngl y commi t t ed a cr i me at t he t i me of

hi s nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on and i nt er vi ew. He r ei t er at es each

of t hose cont ent i ons on appeal .

We r evi ew de novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on

f or j udgment of acqui t t al , t aki ng t he evi dence and al l pl ausi bl e

i nf er ences i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . Uni t ed

St at es v. Pr ez- Mel ndez, 599 F. 3d 31, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

A. "Under Oath"

Mensah' s ar gument t hat t he government f ai l ed t o show

beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat he had made f al se st at ement s " under

oat h" r est s on hi s asser t i on t hat t he gover nment i nt r oduced no

evi dence that he was gi ven a ver bal war ni ng by an of f i ci al

aut hor i zed t o admi ni st er such war ni ngs bef or e he si gned hi s

nat ur al i zat i on appl i cat i on. That ar gument i s di spat ched by our

-44-


45/53

di scussi on of t he al l eged er r or i n t he oat h i nst r uct i on. See supr a

Sect i on I V. B.

B. False Statement

Mensah' s at t ack on t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

showi ng t hat he made a f al se st at ement si mi l ar l y over l aps wi t h hi s

cl ai m of er r or i n t he f al si t y i nst r ucti on. He ar gues t hat t he

government pr oduced no evi dence t hat "N/ A" was a f al se r esponse t o

t he "ot her names" quest i on and asser t s t hat pr oof t hat he f ai l ed t o

i ncl ude i nf or mat i on on t he f or m or answered t he "ot her names"

quest i on evasi vel y i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o show f al si t y beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . He poi nt s out t hat Sauci er , t he i mmi gr at i on

of f i ci

United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents