RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — The Fourth Circuit heard arguments Wednesday that convictions should be upheld in immigration cases where people were smuggled into the U.S. outside of a port of entry.
David Whitehead was convicted in June 2022 of conspiracy to commit alien smuggling, aiding and abetting the smuggling of aliens and money laundering. He was sentenced to 10 and a half years and a year of court-supervised release.
Whitehead argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him for smuggling, while the federal government says it met the burden of proof at trial, and “knowledge and intent may be proven through circumstantial evidence,” like that used to convict Whitehead.
“Defendant’s wife testified about her husband’s knowledge that she and her family were involved in the alien smuggling business,” the government wrote in its brief.
According to trial evidence, Whitehead was aware that his Honduran wife, Martha Zelaya-Mejia, smuggled multiple Honduran women and their children into the United States to become wives for a North Carolina farmer who was later arrested for sexually abusing one of the women.
Speaking about one of the women brought over in the scheme, the defendant's lawyer Rudolph Ashton III argued Wednesday that prosecutors didn't prove Whitehead knew she hadn’t entered through a port of entry, and that the existing statute defining port of entry is “vague” and “ambiguous.”
However as U.S. Circuit Court Judge Harris, a Barack Obama appointee, pointed out, Whitehead claimed he wasn’t involved in the smuggling process at all.
“It doesn’t seem like this port of entry question played any role at trial,” Harris said. “There was sufficient evidence for a juror to find that this woman set foot on land at a place other than a designated port of entry, and the defendant didn’t ask for an instruction elaborating on this element.”
Justice Department attorney Julie Childress argued that the smuggling strategy was not to go through port of entry, but to arrive on U.S. soil then try to leverage being arrested by border agents to stay in the country.
“They were instructed by smugglers to then get across to the border and — the testimony came in — wait to get caught,” she said.
“What was presented at trial was that it is better to come into the country as a woman with a child, and then once you were already in the country… wait to be caught, wait to be apprehended. Then you can actually get some type of documents that may allow you to stay here,” Childress said. “You're already in the house. And then you can come back to the front door, but you've already entered the house.”
The three-judge panel debated what qualifies as a port of entry, and what the process entails.
U.S. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, suggested the queue in an airport to customs qualifies as a port of entry, as does waiting in lane while driving through the border to Mexico.
The judges challenged Childress about whether waiting in line to report to immigration officials was a required process of entering a port of entry, as opposed to skipping the line.
Childress offered that a port of entry is metaphysical, “a designated place” where immigrants submit themselves to immigration officials and present documents.
A port of entry isn’t a place where you get “caught” or “apprehended,” Childress said, which is what the women were seeking to accomplish. The way in which they entered the United States allowed them to circumvent being rejected at the border.
She also pointed out that Whitehead didn’t raise the issue at trial or develop the argument in his brief.
“The defendant failed to raise the issue of what constitutes bringing to or entering the United States at a place other than a designated port of entry,” Childress said. “The actual assistant United States attorney brought up the issue of coming into a place other than a designated port of entry, and defense counsel was still silent on that issue.”
The judges did not say when they would rule.
U.S. Circuit Court Judge Toby Heytens, a Joe Biden appointee, also presided over the oral argument. Lawyers for the defendant and plaintiff did not respond to a request for comment.
Follow @SKHaulenbeek
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Patents and prosecution May 16, 2024
