The Immigration Debate
As the United States Supreme Court stated in the March 2010 decision of Padilla v. Kentucky, “[t]he landscape of federal immigration law has changed dramatically over the last 90 years....The Nation’s first 100 years was a period of unimpeded immigration.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, it was estimated that 8.5 million
unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in 2000. This figure has grown by approximately 250,000 persons each year. As of 2010, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States was approximately 11.4 million. Immigrants from Mexico account for about 6.7 million of the total unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2009, approximately 2 million people illegally entered the United States from Mexico. There are an additional 170,000 people legally entering this country from Mexico each year. These numbers are the spark that has produced a firestorm of
controversy.
Migrant workers, whether legal or illegal, play an important role in the United States’ economy. The average undocumented family pays more than $4,200 in annual federal taxes while earning less than the average annual salary of $36,700. Fifty to eighty-five percent of the 1.6 million farm workers in the U.S. are undocumented. Immigrant workers play a critical service in keeping hotels operating affordably by taking jobs American-born workers do not want. Of the 12 million food service workers in the United States, 1.4 million are believed to be immigrants, with 500,000 of them from Mexico. Forty percent of the workers in the New York
restaurant industry are undocumented. Undocumented workers from Mexico tend to be young, predominately male, struggling with the English language, and employed in the construction, manufacturing and hospitality industries. The reality of undocumented workers in America stands in stark contrast to the fears engendered by their presence.
The fear associated with undocumented workers is not new. Courts throughout the Nation have examined, and attempted to insulate against, the prejudices that a plaintiff, who is an injured undocumented worker, encounters in trying to obtain a fair trial. The debate over illegal immigration, however, is currently at the forefront of the policy in the United States, and attorneys who represent injured undocumented workers must be acutely cognizant of the prejudices that the American people are exposed to during this debate.
Evidence of an Individual’s Alien Status in the Courts
In the course of a hotly contested trial, lawyers often “pull off the gloves.” Professional and ethical conduct, however, requires that there be limitations on the extent to which counsel may go into prejudicial and inadmissible matters. Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, as well as the Federal Rules of Evidence, require that the trial court balance the risk of unfair prejudice against the probative value of the evidence seeking to be admitted. Most courts across the country following Rule 403 have determined that the trial court is to admit relevant evidence unless the probative value of that extraneous evidence is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice.
Evidence Used to Inflame the Jury
“Cases ought to be tried in a court of justice upon the facts provided; and whether a party be a Jew or gentile, white or black, is a matter of indifference.” During the last 100 years, the Texas Appellate Courts have uniformly condemned arguments that invoke prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. This condemnation extends to arguments that seek to highlight or give weight to a person’s alien status. Although the manner in which the prejudicial appeal is presented has varied through the years and from case to case, the response thereto has remained relatively unchanged.
Recent Texas cases
TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes - Texas Supreme Court
In the historic case of TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, decided in March 2010, Justice David Medina, writing for a unanimous Texas Supreme Court, held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence impugning defendant Ricardo Rodriguez‘s character on the basis of his immigration status.15 According to the Court, ―[s]uch error was harmful, not only because its prejudice far outweighed any probative value, but also because it fostered the impression that Rodriguez‘s employer [TXI] should be held liable because it hired an illegal immigrant.
In TXI, Kimberly Hughes was driving with several members of her family when her vehicle collided with a TXI gravel truck driven by Ricardo Rodriguez. The collision killed everyone in Hughes‘ vehicle except for one passenger. Hughes‘ husband sued TXI and
Rodriguez.
At trial, evidence of Rodriguez‘s immigration status was admitted over TXI‘s objections. Evidence was introduced regarding Rodriguez‘s prior deportation, his use of a false Social Security number, and the fact that he lied to obtain a commercial driver‘s license by using a false Social Security number, among other evidence. TXI complained that Rodriguez‘s immigration status was not relevant to any issue in the case, and that evidence of his status was highly prejudicial. Hughes argued that evidence of Rodriguez‘s immigration status was relevant to the issues of negligent hiring and negligent entrustment, and also as impeachment evidence.
Justice Medina analyzed whether evidence of Rodriguez‘s immigration status was relevant to the issues of negligent hiring and negligent entrustment. The Court concluded that neither Rodriguez‘s immigration status nor his use of a fake Social Security number to obtain a commercial driver‘s license caused the collision. Thus, his immigration status was not relevant
to either issue.
The Court then went on to analyze whether evidence of Rodriguez‘s immigration status, offered for impeachment purposes as prior inconsistent statements, was admissible. Justice Medina concluded it was not, for at least two different reasons. The Court first pointed out that Rodriguez‘s immigration status was a collateral matter—that is, it did not relate to any of the claims–thus, it was inadmissible impeachment evidence.
Second, the immigration-related evidence was also inadmissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 608(b). This rule provides that specific instances of conduct of a witness for the purpose of attacking his or her credibility may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. As the Court noted, ―[f]or over 150 years, Texas Civil Courts have consistently rejected evidence of specific instances of conduct for impeachment purposes, no matter how probative of truthfulness.‘ Thus, evidence of Rodriguez‘s immigration status and deportation was inadmissible.
The Court held that even if evidence of Rodriguez‘s immigration status had some relevance, its probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Therefore, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Rodriguez‘s immigration status and the error was harmful.
As Justice Medina so eloquently wrote,
Such appeals to racial and ethnic prejudices, whether ―explicit and brazen‖ or
―veiled and subtle‖ cannot be tolerated because they undermine the very basis of
our judicial process.
