People of Michigan v. Hieu Van Hoang
328 Mich App 45
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Defendant Hieu Van Hoang was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to murder, attempted murder, and first-degree arson for an incident in which his wife, Anh Thi‑Ngoc Nguyen, testified he poured gasoline on a bed, threatened her, and started a fire; she escaped by jumping from a second‑story window and was injured.
- Police and fire investigators found evidence of gasoline and an irregular burn pattern; a lighter was recovered near the scene. Hoang gave a statement to police and was arrested.
- The trial court appointed a Vietnamese interpreter who was physically present for hearings and trial; pretrial attorney–client meetings used the interpreter via speakerphone. Hoang repeatedly requested a physically present interpreter for jail meetings and for review of discovery and jail‑call transcripts.
- At a plea hearing Hoang confirmed he wanted trial and did not raise the phone‑interpreter issue at that time; he later continued to send letters requesting an in‑person interpreter and more accurate translations of jail calls.
- After conviction and sentencing to life terms, Hoang appealed arguing denial of Sixth Amendment counsel (interpreter not physically present during pretrial counsel meetings) and raised multiple ineffective‑assistance claims (failure to impeach witness, introduce a purported exculpatory letter, and present accurate jail‑call transcripts). The Court of Appeals remanded for retranslation and an inquiry; the trial court found no corroborating evidence of the alleged letter and the new translations were substantially similar. The appeals court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Hoang) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether failure to provide a physically present interpreter for pretrial attorney‑client meetings violated statutory/court‑rule rights | Court complied with MCL 775.19a and MCR 1.111; interpreter was appointed and used | Speakerphone interpretation was inadequate; Hoang could not meaningfully participate without in‑person interpreter | No violation of rules; defendant received interpretation and could meaningfully participate |
| 2) Whether lack of an in‑person interpreter during pretrial preparation denied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel | No constructive denial because counsel did consult, investigate, and used interpreter by phone; counsel worked diligently | The absence of a physically present interpreter prevented effective attorney–client communication at a critical stage | No Sixth Amendment violation; not a constructive denial of counsel |
| 3) Whether trial counsel’s performance was ineffective for not insisting on an in‑person interpreter | Counsel reasonably used telephonic interpreter after detecting no breakdown; took steps when concerns expressed | Counsel should have secured in‑person interpreter; failure was deficient and prejudicial | Performance not deficient; no prejudice shown |
| 4) Ineffective assistance for other omissions (failure to impeach, introduce letter, introduce/obtain transcripts or forensic tests) | Counsel cross‑examined and emphasized inconsistencies, highlighted untested lighter, and declined to introduce evidence that would incriminate client | Counsel failed to impeach more aggressively, failed to present a purported exculpatory letter, failed to obtain better translations and forensic testing | No ineffective assistance: strategic choices reasonable; remand retranslation produced substantially similar transcripts; no factual basis for the alleged letter; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (pretrial denial of counsel during critical period can violate due process)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (in certain circumstances constitutional error is presumed when counsel is absent or prevented from assisting at a critical stage)
- Mitchell v. Mason, 325 F.3d 732 (6th Cir.) (constructive denial of counsel where appointed counsel never consulted and was suspended)
- People v. Gonzalez‑Raymundo, 308 Mich. App. 175 (lack of simultaneous translation at trial implicates constitutional rights and cannot be waived by counsel alone)