Michael Su Chia v. Steven Cambra, Jr., Warden Attorney General of the State of California

In 1988, two agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) were brutally murdered while executing an undercover sting operation in Monterey Park, California. Michael Su Chia (“Chia”) was convicted in California Superior Court of being an accomplice to the murders and participating in a conspiracy to ambush, rob, and kill the agents. Chia, however, claimed repeatedly that, far from being a co-conspirator, he tried to talk one of the shooters, his good friend William Wei Wang (“Wang”), out of the plot. Wang confirmed to local and federal authorities that Chia had nothing to do with the conspiracy. The trial court, however, excluded these statements from being heard by the jury. Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court is clear that due process requires that the “minimum essentials of a fair trial” include a “fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations” and the right “to be heard in [one’s] defense.” Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). The trial court’s decision to exclude reliable material evidence of Chia’s innocence therefore constitutes an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established…

dissenting:

I dissent because 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 under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973).

*1009 Having asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Wang was unavailable to serve as a witness in Chia’s trial. Thus, Chia sought to introduce hearsay statements made by Wang to the police, that were exculpatory in nature, as declarations against penal interest. 1 See Cal. Evid.Code § 1280 (West 1999). The trial court determined that Wang’s statements did not fall within this hearsay exception, and that the exclusion of the statements did not deprive Chia of his due process rights under Chambers . In order to determine whether exclusion of the hearsay statements rendered Chia’s trial fundamentally unfair under Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, we must examine the statements themselves.

Co-conspirator Wang was first interviewed by the police on February 5, 1988 in the hospital emergency room prior to his undergoing surgery. Before receiving Wang’s…

360 F.3d 997 Michael Su CHIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven CAMBRA, Jr., Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 99-56361. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 7, 2000 — Pasadena, California. Filed March 4, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED James Dirks, Sacramento, California, for the petitioner-appellant. Valerie A. Baker, Deputy Attorney General, State of California, Los Angeles, California, for the respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-05199-RSWL. Before: DOROTHY W. NELSON, MELVIN BRUNETTI and ALEX KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge D.W. Nelson; Dissent by Judge Brunetti. OPINION D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judge. 1 In 1988, two agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") were brutally murdered while executing an undercover sting operation in Monterey Park, California. Michael Su Chia ("Chia") was convicted in California Superior Court of being an accomplice to the murders and participating in a conspiracy to ambush, rob, and kill the agents. Chia,…