united states v. mensah, 1st cir. (2013)
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Mensah, 1st Cir. (2013)
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