United States v. Torralba-Mendia, No. 13-10064 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiring to smuggle undocumented immigrants into the United States. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court committed plain error by not instructing the jury on how to evaluate dual role testimony of the case agent, who offered both lay and expert testimony, but the error was not prejudicial; (2) the district court did not err in allowing an expert witness to testify about common practices of alien smuggling organizations; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (4) the district court did not err in admitting redacted I-213 immigration forms.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a conviction for conspiring to smuggle undocumented immigrants into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). The panel held that, in light of United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2014), the district court committed plain error by not instructing the jury on how to properly evaluate the testimony of ICE Agent Frazier, whom the government used as both an expert and lay witness. The panel found that the error was not prejudicial because the government bifurcated Frazier’s expert and lay opinion testimony, there was an adequate foundation for his observations, and sufficient evidence independent of his testimony linked the defendant to the conspiracy. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting ICE Agent Burrola’s expert testimony about alien smuggling organizations. The panel held that the testimony helped the jury understand the defendant’s role in the alien smuggling scheme, and that the testimony was not unduly prejudicial. The panel held that a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant joined the conspiracy with the intent to further it. UNITED STATES V. TORRALBA-MENDIA 3 The panel rejected the defendant’s arguments that I-213 immigration forms, which the government introduced to show that many of the passengers detained during the investigation were in fact deported, contained inadmissible hearsay and that their introduction violated the Confrontation Clause. The panel held that the redacted forms were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) as ministerial records, kept in the regular course of Department of Homeland Security business, and not implicating the purposes animating the law enforcement exception to admissibility. The panel held that admission of the forms did not violate the defendant’s confrontation rights because nothing in them suggests they were completed in anticipation of litigation, and they are not testimonial.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.