## Facts

- Joseph Anderson Evans, Sr. was prosecuted in two federal criminal cases (later consolidated on appeal) for being an alien found in the United States after deportation and for multiple fraud-related offenses tied to claimed U.S. citizenship.
- The fraud counts alleged misrepresentations of identity and citizenship to obtain federal benefits (including SSI and food stamps) and to apply for a U.S. passport.
- Evans’s primary defense to all charges was that he was a U.S. citizen.
- Evans’s primary evidence of citizenship was a delayed Idaho birth certificate issued by the Idaho Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics.
- The birth certificate was an official state-issued document, created years after the asserted birth date based on supporting documentation.
- Before trial, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from government witnesses asserting the birth certificate was “not substantively genuine” (i.e., did not truthfully reflect Evans’s birth in Idaho), despite being an official record.
- The district court credited the government’s witnesses, found the certificate “substantively fraudulent,” and excluded it through a Rule 104 admissibility ruling.
- The jury did not see the birth certificate; Evans was convicted on all counts in both prosecutions.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court exceeded its authority under Federal Rules of Evidence 104 and 403 by excluding an official delayed birth certificate based on the judge’s view that it was substantively false.
2. Whether excluding Evans’s central citizenship evidence violated his Fifth Amendment due process right to present a defense.
3. If error occurred, whether the exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the district court erred by excluding the delayed Idaho birth certificate based on a judicial determination that it was “substantively fraudulent.”
- The court concluded the exclusion improperly displaced the jury’s role by resolving a disputed merits question (citizenship) through an admissibility ruling.
- The court held the exclusion violated Evans’s Fifth Amendment due process right to present a defense because it removed his principal evidence supporting citizenship.
- The court held the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated Evans’s convictions and remanded both cases for new trials.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 104(a), a court may decide preliminary admissibility questions (including whether a document is what it purports to be in a formal/authentic sense), but it may not exclude otherwise relevant evidence by adjudicating the ultimate credibility or truth of the defense theory.
- When a document’s official issuance and facial authenticity are undisputed, disputes about the truth of the facts asserted generally go to weight for the jury, not admissibility for the judge.
- Rule 403 does not authorize exclusion of central defense evidence merely because the court believes the opposing party’s evidence is more credible; the ordinary tools are cross-examination and competing proof.
- Excluding a defendant’s central, otherwise admissible evidence may violate due process by denying a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.
- When such an evidentiary exclusion amounts to constitutional error, reversal is required unless the government shows the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit vacated Evans’s convictions because the district court improperly used Rules 104 and 403 to keep the jury from considering an official delayed birth certificate central to Evans’s citizenship defense, thereby violating due process and committing non-harmless error requiring new trials.


United States v. Evans, 728 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013)