This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A deputy Sheriff' initiated a traffic stop of a white Pontiac that appeared 'to be riding low' with one of its license plate lights out. The deputy found nine men, who appeared to be of Latin American descent, smashed into the back of the small SUV. A man named Ira Cannon was driving the vehicle, and D was in the passenger seat. The deputy called the U.S. Border Patrol, which took over the investigation. Border Patrol determined that Cannon was the leader of the human-smuggling operation, D assisted him, and D's husband was the vehicle's registered owner. A Border Patrol agent interviewed the nine smuggled men and determined they were all Mexican nationals. Border Patrol then passed the case to investigators with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DHS investigators interviewed Cannon and D. D cooperated, waived her Miranda rights, and allowed officers to search her phone. D immediately admitted to having illegal aliens in her SUV. Explaining her side of the story, D, a married woman with kids, told the agents that she agreed to help her boyfriend, Cannon, 'make a trip' in exchange for some money. D claimed she was unsure how she would make money by 'pick[ing] up some people,' even though, as an agent explained at trial, that phrase is commonly used as code for human smuggling. She also said that she became nervous about getting caught once she realized that the people they would be transporting were 'freaking Mexicans.' D admitted that her cut of the scheme was $7,000 for supplying the vehicle and that the money would come from the smuggled aliens' families. Cannon testified that D knew from the beginning that going to 'pick up people' meant going to 'transport . . . illegal aliens.' During the trial, P introduced a DHS Investigation Form G-166F authored by the Border Patrol agent who conducted the initial investigation. The agent's supervisor, Ramon Saenz, testified. After laying this foundation, P moved to have the report placed into evidence and a redacted version published to the jury. D objected vehemently at trial, arguing the introduction of the G-166F into evidence violated the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, the hearsay prohibition of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. P argued that Border Patrol uses the G-166F form in its ordinary course of business and thus it falls into the business record exception to the hearsay rule. The district court agreed and admitted the report as a 'business records affidavit of the United States Border Patrol. The aliens themselves never testified, nor did the Border Patrol agents who interviewed them. P did not provide the jury with any official documentation concerning the individuals' nationalities, such as passports or deportation papers. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.