In United States v. Gonzalez-Godinez, --- F.4th ---, No. 21-50031 (9th Cir. 2024), the Court affirmed Mario Gonzalez-Godinez’s conviction for attempted illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).
First, distinguishing the circumstances in United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384, 387 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court rejected Gonzalez's argument that the Miranda warning he received was inadequate because the agent also warned Gonzalez that the post-arrest interview may be his only chance to seek asylum.
The Court held, "[w]hile these two warnings may have posed difficult decisions for Gonzalez, they are neither contradictory nor confusing. Criminal defendants often face a fork in the road with potential peril on either path. The record suggests that Gonzalez understood his rights, and Gonzalez’s gambit was to talk in hopes of seeking asylum, despite the risks. We thus hold that the government did not need to provide further clarification to the Miranda warnings."
Second, the Court also rejected Gonzalez's argument under the corpus delicti doctrine that the government failed to corroborate his confession that he was a Mexican citizen who lacked documentation. The Court held, "the corpus delicti doctrine sets a low bar, requiring only some evidence to support the confession. Sufficient evidence supported Gonzalez’s confession."
