USA V. GONZALEZ-GODINEZ, No. 21-50031 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In the case reviewed, Mario Gonzalez-Godinez was convicted for attempted illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) after being found near a border fence and admitting to being a Mexican citizen without documentation. After his arrest, a Border Patrol agent read him his Miranda rights as well as his immigration-related administrative rights. Gonzalez waived both sets of rights and then confessed to having been smuggled across the border. Gonzalez argued on appeal that the Miranda warning was inadequate and his conviction should be vacated under the corpus delicti doctrine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments.
Firstly, the court ruled that the Miranda warning was not inadequate despite also warning Gonzalez that the post-arrest interview may be his only chance to seek asylum. While these two warnings may have posed difficult decisions for Gonzalez, the court found them to be neither contradictory nor confusing. The court held that the government did not need to provide further clarification to the Miranda warning.
Secondly, the court held that the corpus delicti doctrine, which requires some evidence to support a confession, did not require vacating Gonzalez's conviction. The court found that sufficient evidence supported Gonzalez’s confession, as he had twice admitted to being a Mexican citizen and his behavior at the border supported his confession. Thus, the court affirmed Gonzalez’s conviction.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed Mario Gonzalez-Godinez’s conviction for attempted illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).
A Border Patrol agent witnessed Gonzalez crawling on the ground near a border fence, and Gonzalez admitted he was a Mexican citizen without documentation. After Gonzalez was arrested and taken to a border station, another Border Patrol agent read him his Miranda rights as well as his immigration-related administrative rights. Gonzalez waived both sets of rights, then confessed that he had been smuggled across the border that morning.
Gonzalez argued that the Miranda warning was inadequate because the agent also warned him that the post-arrest interview may be his only chance to seek asylum. The panel wrote that while these two warnings may have posed difficult decisions for Gonzalez, they are neither contradictory nor confusing. Observing that the record suggests that Gonzalez understood his rights, the panel wrote that Gonzalez’s gambit was to talk in hopes of seeking asylum, despite the risks. The panel thus held that the government did not need to provide further clarification to the Miranda warning.
Gonzalez also argued that his conviction should be vacated under the corpus delicti doctrine because the government did not corroborate his alienage admission. Noting that the corpus delicti doctrine sets a low bar, requiring only some evidence to support the confession, the panel held that sufficient evidence supported Gonzalez’s confession.
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.