DEFENDANT CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE A SEARCH WITH HIS OWN TESTIMONY
In this federal case, the Court reminds the Government of Simmons, that the defendant's own testimony established his standing to challenge the search, contrary to the government's assertions. United States v. Gomez-Vega, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79694 (D. P.R. September 20, 2007):
Gomez-Vega testified at the suppression hearing only as to the standing issue. Based on Gomez-Vega's testimony, the Court concluded at the hearing that he had standing to challenge the seized items under the totality of the circumstances and the evidence before the Court. Accordingly, Gomez-Vega met the threshold established in Aguirre and Lochan.
The Court stated "it has been well settled for over twenty years that testimony given to meet standing requirements cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant at trial on the question of guilt or innocence." United States v. Garcia-Rosa, 876 F.2d 209, 219 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 390, 88 S.Ct. 967, 974, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1247 (1968)). Thus, a defendant should have no prejudicial consequence in admitting ownership of the drug or portions thereof to sustain standing to contest its seizure under Fourth Amendment grounds.
Comment: Under Simmons, the defendant has the ability to testify in his own behalf to establish standing, and the testimony cannot be used against him at trial, unless, of course, he testifies at trial and contridicts that standing testimony.
