United States v. Hung Thien Ly
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14830
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ly was indicted on 129 counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04 for 2004–2005 conduct involving schedules II–IV substances.
- Ly, proceeding pro se, faced a district-court colloquy about testifying; he misunderstood his right to testify narratively and to testify without counsel.
- The district court initiated the colloquy but did not correct Ly’s misunderstanding; Ly stated he would testify only if aided by counsel, effectively choosing not to testify.
- Ly was convicted on all 129 counts after the jury trial, despite his pro se status and the court’s colloquy.
- Ly challenged on appeal that the district court denied his right to testify by failing to correct his misunderstanding; the Eleventh Circuit reviews de novo.
- The court vacated the convictions, holding the district court’s failure to correct Ly’s misunderstanding violated his right to testify and remanded the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court have a duty to correct pro se Ly’s misunderstanding about testifying? | Ly | Government | Yes; court erred by not correcting misunderstanding |
| Can a defendant’s right to testify be treated as subject to a waiver colloquy like counsel or jury rights? | Ly | Government | Not as a required on-the-record waiver; but court must safeguard right |
| Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Ly | Government | No; error not harmless given lack of Ly’s testimony and strong prosecution case |
| Should the convictions be vacated and remanded due to the district court’s exceptional conduct? | Ly | Government | Yes; convictions vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (right to testify grounded in due process and self-representation rights)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; limits on how courts interact with pro se defendants)
- Teague v. Voss, 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992) (pro se defense/right-to-testify decision best discussed with counsel; exceptions apply when no counsel)
- United States v. Van De Walker, 141 F.3d 1451 (11th Cir. 1998) (district court may have duty to address knowingness of waiver in certain right-to-testify contexts)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (requirement of knowing waiver for fundamental rights; informs on intelligent waiver concepts)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (requirement of knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver for guilty pleas; informs broader waiver principle)