United States v. Chen Chiang Liu
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1168
9th Cir.2011Background
- Liu was charged in Nevada with a SSI conspiracy to import, transfer, and sell high-quality counterfeit currency (supernotes) from 2004–2007.
- An undercover operation in California involved Liu from 2004–2005 with shipments of counterfeit currency and $20,000 in genuine currency used to compensate him.
- California indictment filed August 17, 2005; Liu appeared in Los Angeles; multiple continuances delayed trial.
- California indictment was dismissed on April 7, 2008 in favor of a Nevada indictment superseding it.
- Nevada SSI filed April 2, 2008; added Min Li Liu as co-conspirator; later Min Li acquitted at trial; Liu convicted on SSI counts.
- Liu was sentenced to 151 months; he timely appeals the district court’s STA ruling and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| STA timing for conspiracy charge between indictments | Liu: California and Nevada indictments same conspiracy | Liu: STA time violated until Nevada trial | STA clock restarted; no violation; delay reasonable and excluded |
| Need for multiple conspiracy instruction | Prosecution: multiple conspiracies possible | Liu: potential separate conspiracies require instruction | No plain error; no spillover risk; instruction not required |
| Need for specific unanimity on overt acts | Unanimity as to overt act required | Omitted instruction harmless given verdict on substantive count | No reversible error; substantial rights not affected |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. King, 483 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2007) (STA clock when superseding indictments affect co-defendants, limited by reasonableness and good faith)
- United States v. Stoddard, 111 F.3d 1450 (9th Cir. 1997) (factors for analyzing whether conspiracies are the same for joinder/aggregation)
- Arnold v. United States, 336 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964) (five-factor test for conspiracy overlap and joinder)
- Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321 (1986) (joinder generally allocates speed-trial computation to latest codefendant; end matters for delay analysis)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (Supreme Court: not required to specify single overt act for general verdicts (plurality))
- United States v. Anguiano, 873 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1989) (purpose of multiple conspiracy instruction; avoid spillover)