Admission Admissible that Accusation for U-Visa?
In 2021, in Sonoma County Superior Court, a jury convicted Cecilio Castaneda-Prado, age 55, of five counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under age 14 (Penal Code § 288(a)), as well as allegations that the charges involved multiple victims (Penal Code § 667.61(j)(2), (e)(4)) and substantial sexual conduct (Penal Code § 1203.066(a)(8)).
Mr. Casteneda-Prado had been married for 38 years and worked as a landscaper. He had four children of his own.
The judge sentenced him to 125 years to life, based on five consecutive prison terms each of 25 years to life.
On appeal to the First Appellate District, Mr. Castaneda-Prado argued that the trial court judge erred by excluding relevant evidence of bias and motive that one of the two victims (referred to as Jane Doe 2) testified to at the preliminary hearing that she believed that by accusing Castaneda-Prado, she was helping her mother obtain a U-visa, a type of temporary visa that can provide legal immigration status for noncitizen victims of certain crimes who assist in the investigation of those crimes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U).
The trial court also erred, Mr. Castaneda-Prado argued, by barring any cross-examination on the topic since, the judge explained, the evidence’s probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial nature.
Such testimony, Mr. Castaneda-Prado argued, even supported a motive to fabricate to help her mother with her immigration status.
In support of his appeal, Mr. Castaneda-Prado cited to California Evidence Code § 780, which provides in part: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court or jury may consider in determining the credibility of a witness any matter than has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, including but not limited to any of the following: . . . (f) the existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive.”
The First Appellate District agreed with Mr. Castaneda-Prado and reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.
The First Appellate District explained that under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, facts showing bias are considered highly probative of credibility and are almost never deemed categorically off-limits. United States v. Abel (1984) 469 U.S. 45, 52.
In criminal cases, the right to cross-examine is not only fundamental to the adversarial process: it is constitutionally protected in the Sixth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Moreover, cross-examination is known as the “ ‘the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.’” White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 356. “[C]ross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.” Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308, 316; see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673.
Here, the First Appellate District found that the U-visa evidence held substantial probative weight because the guilty verdicts relied almost entirely on the alleged victims’ credibility rather than physical evidence of the offenses.
Addressing the trial court’s ruling, the First Appellate District said it found it “puzzling” that in excluding Jane Doe 2’s testimony about her mom’s U-visa, the judge said such testimony would cause an undue consumption of time and cause jury distraction. It was not clear that the judge did “any” inquiry into U visa practice and procedure, with attendant complexities requiring expert explanation or “any” probing of Doe 2’s understanding of the likelihood her mother would actually obtain immigration relief, which was required here.
The First Appellate District then said, “What mattered most was that Doe 2 apparently believed she was furthering her mother’s interest in obtaining a U visa by giving damaging testimony about Castaneda-Prado. Defense counsel was entitled to probe that belief on cross-examination no matter how unreasonable or untutored it may have been.
Additionally, the trial court’s assessment of Jane Doe’s preliminary hearing testimony was a credibility issue better left to the jury.
Moreover, the First Appellate District pointed out that it was unclear why the U-visa evidence was potentially prejudicial since there was no evidence that testimony concerning Jane Doe 2’s immigration status would inspire anti-immigrant prejudice.
We appreciate this ruling because it shows a deeper evaluation of exactly what bias or motive is and what a defense attorney may want to argue, if applicable, in handling a similar situation.
For more information about immigration issues arising in the context of witness credibility, please click on the following articles:
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona