Supreme Court Decides Illegal Re-Entry Case

In U.S. v. Resendiz-Ponce, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a man caught trying to enter the country illegally in a case that initially was seen as a test of whether a flawed indictment could violate a defendant’s rights. But in an 8-1 opinion, the court said that the indictment of Juan Resendiz-Ponce itself was sound. Resendiz-Ponce, a Mexican national, sought to persuade the justices that there was a problem so serious in his indictment that it warranted reversing his conviction. Justice Antonin Scalia, the lone dissenter, agreed. Resendiz-Ponce was charged with attempting to enter the country illegally after he was arrested at the border crossing at San Luis on June 1, 2003. He presented his cousin’s green card and driver’s license to U.S. authorities. But the grand jury indictment that followed failed to set out any specific acts showing how he tried to enter the United States. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the omission was so serious that it violated Resendiz-Ponce’s constitutional rights and required automatic reversal of the conviction. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, however, told justices at oral argument that this error was harmless because Resendiz-Ponce received a fair trial at which a jury determined that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had displayed two false pieces of identification in an effort to enter the country.

The decision in U.S. v. Resendiz-Ponce can be found here, as well as Justice Scalia’s dissent, can be found at scotus blog.  Click here for the links.

KJ