## Facts

- Border patrol stopped a van carrying eleven undocumented immigrants; the van was registered to Rafael Castro-Ayon, a U.S. citizen living in Richmond, California.
- The immigrants were taken to a Border Patrol station, advised of Miranda rights, placed under oath, and interviewed; the interviews were tape-recorded.
- At trial, three immigrants testified in a manner tending to exculpate Castro-Ayon.
- Each witness acknowledged making an earlier statement to an agent shortly after arrest.
- The agent testified to the substance of the witnesses’ prior statements, which conflicted with their trial testimony.
- Over objection, the district court admitted the prior inconsistent statements and instructed the jury it could consider them both for credibility and for guilt.
- Castro-Ayon was convicted of transporting/inducing unlawful immigration under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371.

## Issues

1. Whether prior inconsistent statements taken during a sworn, tape-recorded immigration interrogation qualify as statements made at an “other proceeding” under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A).
2. Whether, if admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), the statements may be used as substantive evidence of guilt rather than only to impeach credibility.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the witnesses’ earlier sworn, recorded statements were admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) as non-hearsay.
- The court held the jury instruction permitting substantive use of the prior inconsistent statements was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), a prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay when the declarant testifies at trial, is subject to cross-examination about the statement, and the statement was given under oath at a trial, hearing, deposition, or “other proceeding.”
- A recorded, sworn immigration interrogation with formal safeguards (oath, recording, and warnings) can qualify as an “other proceeding” for purposes of Rule 801(d)(1)(A).
- When Rule 801(d)(1)(A) applies, the prior inconsistent statement is admissible for its truth, and the jury may consider it as substantive evidence, not merely for impeachment.

## Conclusion

Because the testifying witnesses were subject to cross-examination and their earlier inconsistent statements were sworn and recorded in an immigration interrogation treated as an “other proceeding” under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), the statements were admissible as substantive evidence, and the convictions were affirmed.


United States v. Castro-Ayon, 537 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir. 1976)