Can Undocumented Status be used for Impeachment Purposes

Thanks to Professor Carter White, director of the UC Davis Civil Rights Clinic for this:

The Texas Supreme Court today granted review in TXI Transportation Co., et al. v. Randy Hughes, et al. Two of the principal issues in the case are whether evidence that a truck driver involved in a fatal truck-SUV collision was an undocumented immigrant was properly admitted for impeachment purposes and whether the trial court improperly overruled a Batson challenge to the plaintiff’s use of a peremptory strike against the only Latino prospective juror.  The plaintiffs won over $15 million in compensatory damages and over $ 6 million in punitive damages.  The state court of appeals, with one of three justices dissenting, reversed the punitive damages award, opinion here.

In her dissent Justice Anne Gardner wrote:

“[Plaintiffs’] counsel did not mention, much less did they emphasize, Rodriguez’s illegal status in closing argument.  They did not need to.  Trial lawyers learn early that the most vital impressions on a jury are made in the first few moments of a trial. [They had called the driver as their first witness, showing the jury his videotaped deposition.]  Moreover, they made sure the jury did not forget.  Throughout the trial, at least forty references to Rodriguez’s status as an illegal alien were made, through questioning of Rodriguez as well as other witnesses, reminding the jurors of Rodriguez’s prior residence, his driving experience, and his years as a driver in Mexico, his prior arrest for illegal entry and deportation to Mexico, his use of a false social security number to obtain his commercial Texas driver’s license in 1996, his making of false statements to prospective employers regarding his immigration status, and even his current status as an immigrant while continuing to drive for TXI.  Additionally, although not noted by the majority, Appellants complain that [plaintiffs] were allowed to introduce evidence of Rodriguez’s conviction . . .  for illegal entry into the United States [which was a misdemeanor, not a felony, and therefore should not have come in for impeachment under the Texas Rule of Evidence].
“Whether Rodriguez was an illegal immigrant had nothing to do with whether he crossed over the center line of Highway 114 before the collision.  His immigration status was equally irrelevant on the issues of his driving experience, which was considerable, and his driving record, which was clean, . . . .  Appellants tied this evidence to Rodriguez’s use of a false social security number to obtain his commercial driver’s license in Texas.  But whether he had a false social security number was likewise irrelevant.”

The Texas Supreme Court has been criticized in recent years as being pro-business, and a cynic might suggest that it becomes concerned with prejudicial evidence about immigration status only when such evidence may cost an insurance company several million dollars.  But a reversal in TXI Transportation would set a precedent to exclude this evidence in other cases.  The court will set the case for oral argument sometime this fall.

The parties’ briefs in the Texas Supreme Court are here.

bh