ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
_________________________________________________________________
No.
_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HUNG SHUN xxxxxx, Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________________________________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
_________________________________________________________________
A.J. Kramer
Federal Public Defender
Sandra G. Roland
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
625 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 550
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 208-7500
District Court
Cr. No.
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RUxxxxxxGS, AND RELATED CASES
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Defendant-Appellant, Hung Shun xxxxxx, hereby states as follows:
A. Parties and Amici:
The parties below were defendant Hung Shun xxxxxx, defendant Qiu xxx, and the United States of America. The parties to this appeal are defendant-appellant Hung Shun xxxxxx, defendant-appellant Qiu xxx, and plaintiff-appellee, the United States of America. There are no intervenors or amici.
B. Ruxxxxxxgs Under Review:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court (the Honorable Stanley Sporkin), dated April 13, 1995, adjudging appellant xxxxxx guilty after a jury trial on the charges of hostage- taking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1203 and 2, using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) and 2, and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2) and 2.
In this appeal, appellant seeks review of the district court's ruxxxxxxgs on March 29 and 30, 1995, precluding cross-examination on the witnesses' motive to fabricate; the district court's examination on April 11, 1995, eliciting testimony from an FBI agent that he found the government's witnesses to be reliable and their stories to be consistent; the jury instructions delivered on April 13, 1995, wrongly instructing the jury on the charge of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; the district court's ruxxxxxxgs on March 22 and 29, 1995, denying appellant's motion to dismiss, and; the district court's ruxxxxxxgs on April 10 and 11, 1995, denying appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
C. Related Cases:
There are no related cases. This case has not previously been before this Court.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
STATUTES AND RULES 1
JURISDICTION 1
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
A. Nature of the Case, Course of Proceedings, and
Disposition in the Court Below 2
B. Statement of Facts 4
i. The Evidence at Trial 5
ii. The Preclusion of Cross-Examination on Bias 13
iii. The Testimony that the Government's Witnesses
Were Reliable 16
iv. The Jury Instruction Defining 18 U.S.C.
924(c)(1) 19
v. The Motion to Dismiss the Indictment 20
vi. The Motion for Judgment of Acquittal 21
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 21
ARGUMENT
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PROHIBITING ALL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES ABOUT WHETHER THEY RAN AN ILLEGAL GAMBxxxxxxG HOUSE THAT COMPETED FOR BUSINESS WITH THE ONE IN WHICH APPELLANT WORKED WHEN SUCH INQUIRY WAS RELEVANT TO
BIAS AND, MORE SPECIFICALLY, MOTIVE TO LIE 25
A. Standard of Review 25
B. The Proposed Cross-Examination Was Relevant to
the Witnesses' Bias and Motive to Lie 25
C. A Good Faith Basis Supported the Proposed Cross-Examination 30
D. The Preclusion of the Cross-Examination Was Not Harmless Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 32
II. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY BOLSTERED THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES' CREDIBILITY BY
SOLICITING THE FBI CASE AGENT'S OPINION THAT THE WITNESSES WERE RELIABLE AND TRUTHFUL, AND
THAT THEIR STORIES WERE CONSISTENT 34
A. Standard of Review 34
B. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error When It Solicited the FBI Case Agent's Opinion About the Credibility of the Government's Other Witnesses 36
III. MR. xxxxxx'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 924(C)(1) WAS IMPROPER IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S SUPERVENING DECISION IN BAILEY V. UNITED STATES 45
A. Standard of Review 45
B. The Supervening Decision in Bailey v. United States Requires Reversal of the 18 U.S.C. 924(c) Convictions 45
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT WHERE THE DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT IN SEIZING AND DETAINING PERSONS UNTIL MONEY WAS PAID FOR AN OUTSTANDING TELEPHONE BILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE HOSTAGE-TAKING IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1203 48
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE OF HOSTAGE-TAKING IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1203 BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT 48
CONCLUSION 48
CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH 50
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 50