News
Appellate Practice
Feb. 28, 2002
Man Convicted In Murder Plot Wins New Trial
LOS ANGELES - A man convicted in a plot to murder federal drug agents deserves a new trial because the judge in the case refused to allow evidence that the defendant tried to talk the shooters out of the killings, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found 2-1 that Michael Su Chia's due process rights - specifically his right to present a defense - were violated when a Los Angeles Superior Court judge excluded statements by one of the shooters.
The appeals court reversed U.S. District Court Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw's decision denying Chia's writ of habeas corpus. The panel instructed Wardlaw to grant Chia's writ unless the state steps in and "grants Chia a new trial within a reasonable time," according to the opinion. Chia v. Cambra, 2002 DJDAR 2239 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2002).
In 1988, a jury convicted Chia of first-degree murder, attempted murder, second-degree robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery - charges stemming from a Drug Enforcement Agency sting that turned violent. Chia was prosecuted as a co-conspirator with the men who robbed and murdered two drug enforcement agents in the sting, although Chia wasn't present during the shooting, according to the opinion.
Chia argued that, not only did he not participate in the conspiracy, he tried to persuade one of the shooters, William Wei Wang, not to go through with it, the opinion states. To back up his defense, Chia wanted to present statements that Wang made to police after the shooting, but the trial court excluded those statements as hearsay.
"The crux of the matter before us is the reliability of Wang's statements," Judge Dorothy W. Nelson wrote in the majority opinion. "If Wang's statements bear sufficient indicia of reliability and were crucial to Chia's defense, then it was error for the trial court to exclude them."
The majority concluded that Wang's statements were in fact reliable and crucial to Chia's defense.
"We are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed and that Chia's fundamental due process rights were violated when the trial court excluded Wang's statements," Nelson wrote for the majority.
Nelson said the appellate majority based its ruling on federal law that says, "When a hearsay statement bears persuasive assurances of trustworthiness and is critical to the defense the exclusion of that statement may rise to the level of a constitutional due process violation."
The majority found Wang's statements to the police persuasive, saying, "Chia's warning establishes that he was not furthering the conspiracy but, quite the opposite, was discouraging his friend from participating. The inculpatory force of this statement with respect to Wang is obvious, and indeed the government conceded at oral argument that the very words, 'he told me don't do it,' at once inculpate Wang and exculpate Chia."
Judge Melvin Brunetti disagreed, finding that "Wang's statements do not bear sufficient indicia of reliability, and the California trial court's exclusion of these statements as inadmissible hearsay did not deny Chia his due process rights."
Some of Wang's comments to the police implicated Chia, including statements that Chia drove Wang to meetings with others to plan the shooting and that Chia played the role of lookout while Wang attended one such meeting, Brunetti wrote.
Brunetti said the trial court judge properly excluded Wang's statements, as Chia wanted only the portions that were helpful to him introduced into evidence.
A spokesman for the attorney general's office, Nathan Barankin, said the office is reviewing the appellate ruling. Chia's attorney, James Dirks of Sacramento, could not be reached for comment.
#337616
Amy Tatko
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com