## Facts

- U.S. Border Patrol stopped Ted Stevenson Angwin (driver) and Christine Khamis (passenger) at a checkpoint near Niland, California, about forty miles north of the U.S.–Mexico border.
- At primary inspection, Angwin stated both were U.S. citizens and that the only occupants were “the two of them and the dog.”
- Agents observed suspicious behavior, including Angwin’s nervousness and Khamis’s manner of answering questions, and referred the motorhome to secondary inspection.
- In secondary inspection, agents found fourteen undocumented Mexican nationals concealed throughout the motorhome.
- Angwin claimed he acted under duress and intended to avoid confrontation by driving to the nearest checkpoint; he sought to introduce Coast Guard Auxiliary experience as Rule 406 habit evidence of a regular practice of avoiding confrontation and seeking official help.
- The district court excluded the proffered habit evidence as insufficiently similar to the charged conduct.
- After a joint jury trial in the Southern District of California, both defendants were convicted of federal immigration offenses; Angwin received an upward sentencing adjustment for creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to the transported individuals.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying severance and trying Angwin and Khamis jointly.
2. Whether the district court erred by excluding Angwin’s proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 406 habit evidence based on Coast Guard-related rescues and training.
3. Whether a “bringing in” illegal-alien offense may be charged and proven on an aiding-and-abetting theory under 18 U.S.C. § 2.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, making denial of the Rule 29 motions erroneous.
5. Whether the district court properly applied an upward sentencing adjustment for creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance; any risk of prejudice from joinder was not sufficient to require separate trials.
- The court upheld exclusion of the Rule 406 evidence, agreeing it lacked probative value because the asserted Coast Guard rescue practices were not substantially similar to transporting concealed passengers in a motorhome.
- The court rejected Angwin’s claim that the charged immigration offense could not rest on aiding and abetting, concluding aiding-and-abetting liability generally applies absent clear congressional intent to the contrary.
- The court found the trial evidence sufficient for a rational jury to infer knowing participation, including the concealment of fourteen individuals and Angwin’s false statement that no one else was inside.
- The court affirmed the sentencing enhancement, finding no reversible error in the determination that the transport conditions created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

## Legal Principles

- Severance is committed to the district court’s discretion; a defendant must show compelling prejudice from a joint trial that cannot be cured by instructions and ordinary trial management.
- Rule 406 habit evidence requires proof of a regular, semi-automatic response in substantially similar circumstances; dissimilar prior conduct may be excluded as lacking probative value.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, aiding-and-abetting liability applies broadly to federal offenses unless Congress clearly excludes it for the statute at issue.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational jury could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; false exculpatory statements and concealment can support inferences of knowledge and participation.
- Sentencing enhancements based on risk of death or serious bodily injury may be sustained when the manner of transportation materially endangers concealed passengers, and appellate review gives deference to the district court’s factual findings absent clear error.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the defendants’ joint trial and convictions for immigration offenses based on evidence supporting knowing participation, approved aiding-and-abetting liability for the charged “bringing in” conduct, sustained exclusion of dissimilar Rule 406 habit evidence, and affirmed a risk-based sentencing enhancement where concealment and transport conditions endangered the hidden passengers.


United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2001)