快活视频

 

United States v. Alvirez

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Indian Law
  • Date Filed: 03-14-2013
  • Case #: 11-10244
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Rawlinson for the Court; Circuit Judges Nelson and Ikuta

Under the Fed. R. Evid. 搂搂 902(1) and 902(2), Indian tribes are not political subdivisions capable of issuing self-authenticating documents and, therefore, tribes and tribal officers cannot authenticate a Certificate of Indian Blood.

Edgar Alvirez, Jr. (鈥淎lvirez鈥) challenged his jury conviction and thirty-seven month sentence for 鈥渁ssault resulting in serious bodily injury on an Indian reservation,鈥 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 搂搂 1153 and 113(a)(6). A defendant鈥檚 Indian status is an essential element of a 搂 1153 offense. The most important element of Indian status is tribal enrollment or government recognition of such. The Ninth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion when it admitted as proof of that element a Certificate of Indian Blood (鈥淐ertificate鈥) issued by the Colorado River Indian Tribes and proffered by the government as self-authenticating. The panel agreed with Alvirez that Fed. R. Evid. 902(1), does not enumerate tribes as political subdivisions capable of issuing self-authenticating documents, and, for that reason, a Hualapai Nation Police Officer could not authenticate the Certificate under Rule 902(2). The panel 鈥渧acate[d] [Alvirez鈥橾 conviction because more likely than not the admission of the Certificate materially affected the verdict.鈥 For the sake of judicial economy the court addressed other issues likely to arise on remand: 1) a seven-level enhancement for 鈥減ermanent or life-threatening injury鈥 was not plain error where repair of victim鈥檚 ankle included nine screws, surgical steel, and may cause long-term arthritic effects; 2) because polygraph evidence may be admissible as 鈥渁n operative fact鈥 and is not 鈥減er se inadmissible,鈥 it was not abuse of discretion to deny Alvirez鈥 motion in limine to exclude a dispositive polygraph; and 3) denial of the motion in limine did not deny Alvirez his constitutional right to present a complete defense merely because he elected not to present coercion as a defense for fear of opening the door to admission of the polygraph. REVERSED and REMANDED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top