Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A border patrol agent stopped a van carrying eleven illegal aliens. The van was registered to D, a United States citizen residing in Richmond, California. The aliens were taken to the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station where Agent Pearce advised them of their 'Miranda' rights, placed them under oath and interrogated them. The interrogation was tape-recorded. During trial, three of the aliens were asked questions about D. These witnesses all tended to exculpate him. The prosecutor asked foundation questions for impeachment. Each witness admitted that she had made a statement to Agent Pearce shortly after she was arrested. The prosecutor next called Agent Pearce. Pearce testified to the substance of the prior statements, all of which were inconsistent with the testimony that the witnesses had given in court. D objected to the admission of this evidence. The court instructed the jury to weigh the prior inconsistent statements of the witnesses, not only in testing the credibility of the witnesses but also in considering the defendant's guilt. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.