United States v. Ho-Man Lee
664 F. App'x 126
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Lee, a South Korean lawful permanent resident, assisted individuals in procuring fraudulent driver’s licenses and received payment; he claims he was acting at the direction of Han Chul Na, whom Lee believed to be a government (ICE) agent.
- Na allegedly showed Lee a badge, handcuffs, and a business card; Lee contends he participated believing he was assisting law enforcement.
- Lee was arrested June 27, 2012; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to produce driver’s licenses on January 7, 2014, one week before trial.
- Over a year later Lee moved to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting lack of culpable intent (good-faith/entrapment-type theory), newly discovered evidence about Na (business cards, badge, post-arrest statements, informant status), and that he lacked time to prepare for trial due to late disclosures.
- The District Court denied the motion; Lee appealed, arguing errors in the District Court’s assessment of the Jones factors (assertion of innocence and strength of reasons to withdraw).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee credibly asserted innocence under Jones first factor | Lee: He lacked criminal intent because he believed he was assisting a government agent (good-faith/entrapment) | Gov’t: Lee’s plea colloquy and record contradicted a credible factual showing of innocence | Court: No abuse of discretion; District Court properly weighed record and found Lee’s assertion unsupported |
| Whether entrapment/good-faith required withdrawal | Lee: Entrapment/good-faith supports withdrawal | Gov’t: Entrapment was not raised below; waived on appeal | Court: Entrapment argument waived; no exceptional circumstances to consider it |
| Whether new evidence (Na’s post-arrest indicia) and alleged Brady/Giglio violations justify withdrawal | Lee: Post-plea evidence (cards, badge, statements, informant status) and Brady/Giglio violations undermine plea | Gov’t: Brady/Giglio not raised in district court; evidence did not show Na would have been unavailable earlier | Court: Arguments waived or meritless; availability of Na and prior cooperation undercut Lee’s claim |
| Whether denial of continuance and late disclosure made plea involuntary | Lee: New counsel and late production of documents required more time; denial rendered plea involuntary | Gov’t: No continuance motion was filed; request withdrawn; issue not preserved | Court: Argument waived; no abuse of discretion shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martinez, 785 F.2d 111 (3d Cir. 1986) (standard of review for withdrawal of plea)
- United States v. Jones, 336 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (Jones factors for plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Isaac, 141 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 1998) ("solemn admission" rule; reluctance to permit withdrawal)
- Gov’t of V.I. v. Berry, 631 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1980) (district court’s role in weighing credibility on plea-withdrawal motions)
- United States v. Wilson, 429 F.3d 455 (3d Cir. 2005) (requirement of credible factual support for assertions of innocence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence and disclosure obligations)