United States v. Chu Kong Yin, AKA Alfred Chu

Chu Kong Yin (Chu) appeals from his conviction and sentence of fifteen years imprisonment for making false statements on an Application for Status as Permanent Resident in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1546. Chu raises four arguments on appeal: (1) the district court erred in concluding that certain public documents from Hong Kong were properly authenticated; (2) the district court admitted documents containing inadmissible hearsay; (3) the jury’s verdict against Chu was not supported by substantial evidence; and (4) the district court’s sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. We reverse in part and reverse and remand in part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Chu filed an Application for Status as Permanent Resident on July 20, 1983. On the form issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Chu responded to the question “I list below all organizations, societies, clubs, and associations, past or present, in which I have held mem-bership_” with the word “None.” In response to the question “I have/have not been arrested, convicted or confined in a prison,” Chu checked the box next to “have not.”…

concurring and dissenting:

I join in the majority's decision that the Hong Kong evidence used against Chu constituted inadmissible hearsay, and that Chu’s convictions must be reversed. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the double jeopardy clause bars Chu’s retrial on certain of the counts, and I therefore dissent from that portion of the opinion.

The majority correctly sets out the standard to be used in analyzing the double jeopardy claims. We must not bar retrial if the evidence admitted against Chu, including the evidence we now deem inadmissible hearsay, sufficiently supports his convictions. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 83 , 39-41, 109 S.Ct. 285, 290-91 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988) (Lockhart). There is sufficient evidence to support Chu's convictions if, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, “ ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” United States v. Adler, 879 F.2d 491, 495 (9th Cir.1988) (Adler), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in Jackson). In determining whether the…

935 F.2d 990 33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 32 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHU KONG YIN, aka Alfred Chu, Defendant-Appellant. No. 89-10408. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 1990. Decided June 3, 1991. Spencer W. Strellis, and William P. Cole, Krech & Cole, Oakland, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Diane B. de Forest, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, ALARCON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. ALARCON, Circuit Judge: 1 Chu Kong Yin (Chu) appeals from his conviction and sentence of fifteen years imprisonment for making false statements on an Application for Status as Permanent Resident in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1001 and 1546. Chu raises four arguments on appeal: (1) the district court erred in concluding that certain public documents from Hong Kong were properly authenticated; (2) the district court admitted documents containing inadmissible hearsay; (3) the jury's verdict against Chu was not supported by substantial evidence; and (4) the district court's sentence of fifteen years'…