Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Juan MacIas

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 15, 2015No. 13-50211Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWardlaw, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority that the district court violated Macias’s Confrontation Clause rights by admitting the Amended Delayed Birth Registration, which contained the Border Patrol agents’ testimonial statements that Macias was born in Mexico. The majority also correctly holds that the district court’s admission of the document where the government failed to call the two attesting Border Patrol agents to testify at Macias’s trial was error. However, the majority incorrectly reviews this error under the plain error standard, concluding that although the error was “plain,” it did not affect…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. United States v. Gregory LewisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  2. United States v. Jack Alan Geston, United States of America v. Jack Alan GestonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  3. United States v. Esteban Bahena-CardenasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  4. Debra Ackerman v. Western Electric Company, Inc., a Corporation, Debra Ackerman v. Western Electric Company, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
  5. United States v. BurrU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Virginia · 1807

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API