United States v. De Los Santos ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51165
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ALBERTO DE LOS SANTOS-MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-729-ALL-EP
--------------------
December 20, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
A jury convicted Luis Alberto De Los Santos-Martinez
(De Los Santos) of illegal reentry of a removed alien under
8 U.S.C. § 1326. He appeals on the sole issue that he was
denied his Sixth Amendment to cross-examine and confront certain
government witnesses about the circumstances surrounding the
taking of an inculpatory written statement from him.
“A trial court, based upon its sound discretion, may limit
the scope and extent of cross-examination, and its decision will
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-51165
-2-
not be disturbed on review unless an abuse of discretion is
present.” United States v. Ramirez, 622 F.2d 898, 899 (5th Cir.
1980) (citation omitted). The district court’s discretion to
limit cross-examination, however, “is subordinate to the
defendant’s right of cross-examination sufficient to satisfy the
confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 899.
Defense counsel was allowed to cross-examine the government
agents thoroughly about whether an alien detained by the Border
Patrol had a choice whether to give a statement. In addition,
through cross-examination, defense counsel extracted admissions
that went towards the accuracy and reliability of De Los Santos’
inculpatory written statement. Thus, De Los Santos was accorded
his Sixth Amendment right “to expose to the jury the facts from
which jurors . . . could appropriately draw inferences relating
to the reliability of the witness.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S.
308, 318 (1974); see United States v. Miliet, 804 F.2d 853, 858-
59 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is hereby AFFIRMED.