Introduction
In the history of jurisprudence, many cases required in-depth research of various components. Some facts that affect the final verdict, such as those from the defendant’s biography, often do not directly relate to the crime or violation of the law under consideration. In this critical writing paper, the case of United States v. Perdomo-Espana will be considered, the result of which the court announced in 2008 (Schubert 272). Various aspects of this process, such as necessity and affirmation defense and other cases that have formed the basis of the court’s decision, are essential components of jurisprudence. A fair verdict based on the right laws can be reached only through a thorough examination of the offense, the circumstances, and the motives of the defendant, as well as through efforts to eliminate prejudice.
Background
Given the various details and nuances, one of the most controversial or complex court cases is the case of United States v. Perdomo-Espana. The Ninth Circuit handled the situation of Juan Perdomo-Espana in 2008 (Schubert 272). On March 21, 2006, Juan illegally crossed the border between the United States and Mexico (Schubert 272).
The court’s final decision was to acquit Perdomo-Espana. In the case of United States v. Perdomo-Espana, it is crucial to consider the entire background of the defendant, particularly his history of deportations. As a result of litigation, the case was reviewed twice, and the results were the opposite.
The Necessity of Perdomo’s Intentions
For a detailed review of the verdict in the Perdomo case, it is essential to determine the person’s intentions when crossing the US border with Mexico. Permodo claimed that his actions were necessary and justified by his desire to save his life (Schubert 272). Because he had significant problems with his blood sugar, he needed a constant supply of insulin (Schubert 272). However, in Mexico, where he was deported on March 7, 2006, he could not support himself with the drug (Schubert 272).
As Schubert states, “Perdomo purchased varied kinds of replenishing insulin, but none of the insulin was sufficiently effective” (272). Perdomo’s blood sugar test was performed during the trial. As a result, the data revealed that the glucose level was significantly higher, at 340 (Schubert 272). These data confirmed Perdomo’s statement regarding the deterioration of his health when crossing the border.
Therefore, when considering the intentions of Perdomo, it is crucial to explore the concept of necessity, which is one of the critical points of this learning material. Schubert (2014) sets specific points that are the basis of this concept. Among them is acting to prevent imminent harm (Schubert 273). This point can be defined as choosing the lesser evil between dying from disease or violating the law. Perdomo’s desire to cross the border to save his life can be considered a necessity.
The Role of Bias
As stated earlier in the paper, the original decision was to charge Perdomo with illegally crossing the US-Mexican border in the process of reentering after deportation. It is important to emphasize that the high level of prejudice, which had a specific informational basis, played a significant role in the court’s decision. According to Schubert, “immigration records revealed that he had twice previously been reported and had not subsequently applied for reentry” (272).
This fact became a significant obstacle to further consideration of the Perdomo case. In addition, despite the blood sugar test results and the doctor’s statement of severe evaluation of glucose level, the court concluded that these factors were insufficient to justify crossing the border (Schubert 272). Consequently, the abovementioned factors played a significant role in the court’s original verdict, confirming Perdomo’s guilt and violations of the laws.
The Role of the Case United States v. Santos-Zuniga and Justification
The factors described in the preceding paragraphs, as well as Perdomo’s biography in the context of past deportations, played a significant role in the court’s bias against the defendant’s guilt. However, on appeal against the court’s decision, different approaches to the case were applied. In particular, it is essential to point out that, on appeal, Perdomo stated that he had not been provided information regarding his right to a defense during his deportation (Schubert 273). Consequently, the court changed the focus of the case from reentering the USA-Mexico border by Perdomo to investigating the circumstances under which he was deported initially. In this case, it was an illustrative turning point in eliminating prejudice.
Adjudication of the United States v. Santos Zuniga case was essential to this transition. The United States Supreme Court held this case in 2004 and considered Zuniga’s lying about his citizenship status when crossing the United States-Mexico border (Schubert 273). Due to the similarity of the two court cases, this situation provided an essential basis for addressing human rights particularities and created a precedent crucial for US law. In the book Introduction to Law and the Legal System, Schubert discusses specific laws that have guided the court.
According to Schubert, “a criminal defendant is entitled to have a jury instruction on any defense which provides a legal defense to the charge against him,” which Perdomo did not have (273). Consequently, the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the case of United States v. Santos-Zuniga found that the deportation of a person without notice of their protection rights was completely unlawful (Schubert 274). This factor reflects on the justification of the initial decision to deport Perdomo and establish his rights.
The Final Decision of the Court
After a detailed review of the case of Perdomo and due to the example of the case United States v. Santos-Zuniga, the court handed down a second decision regarding the defendant. Perdomo was eventually acquitted because, although he had illegally crossed the US-Mexican border, his initial deportation was unlawful. Moreover, by considering the necessity of his actions in reentering and based on the doctor’s test results, it was also stated that Perdomo intended to prevent imminent harm (Schubert 273). Therefore, in 2008, Perdomo-Espana was acquitted by the Ninth Circuit.
Affirmative Defense
Given the characterization of the method Perdomo used on appeal in court, it is essential to emphasize that he accepted a violation of the law. However, he called on the court to hear his explanation of the circumstances and motives of these violations. In particular, his rhetoric as a necessity is a crucial component of the affirmative type of defense (Schubert 274).
As Schubert states, affirmative defense assumes “no criminal responsibility should be imposed, given the particular circumstances accompanying the act” (274). Therefore, the court considered these circumstances and the defendant’s reasons in its final decision. This move reversed the verdict, leading to the acquittal of Perdomo-Espana.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to stress that circumstances, such as the defendant’s motives and the nuances of his deportation, made it possible to carry out a new, just verdict. Aspects such as necessity and justification, affirmative defense, and the case of the United States v. Santos-Zuniga became vital to the final decision of the trial. Therefore, the United States v. Perdomo-Espana case may serve as an example for lawyers and judges concerning a rational and consistent strategy to deal with all aspects of the case.
Work Cited
Schubert, Frank. Introduction to law and the legal system. Cengage Learning, 2014.