United States v. Wing Ma, 20-10252

Defendant Wing Wo Ma convicted of: (1) conspiracy to manufacture/distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana; (2) use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime; (3) use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime resulting in death; and (4) conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and bribery. Appeal to Ninth Circuit; judgment affirmed.
Key testimonial evidence: coconspirator statements about Ma’s $100,000 debt to Kong; lay witnesses describing Ma as a deceptive scam artist; witnesses (Luu, Huynh, Hu) giving opinions implicating Ma in murder and corruption; Hu testified he pled guilty to honest services fraud/bribery.
Physical and forensic evidence tied Ma to the Bark Dumps homicides: surveillance footage and DNA; a coconspirator testified Ma brandished a gun to protect the Bark Dumps grow site.
Defense counsel made a judicial admission in closing that the marijuana conspiracy extended to the Bark Dumps site; government also introduced evidence of planning and preparations for the grow site (factual impossibility not a defense to conspiracy).
Evidence showed repeated gifts from Ma to peace officer Harry Hu and repeated official acts by Hu benefitting Ma; government argued this supported an implicit quid pro quo for honest services fraud.
The court addressed multiple evidentiary challenges, harmless-error arguments, and sufficiency-of-evidence claims and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Ma's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Admissibility of hearsay re: $100,000 debt to Kong	Hearsay, inadmissible	Statement admissible as coconspirator statement and statement against interest	Admissible
Lay witness opinion that Ma was a deceptive scam artist	Improper lay opinion/character evidence	Permissible lay opinion about character/reputation (Skeet)	Admissible
Hu calling Ma’s gifts "bribes"	Improper legal conclusion/prejudicial	Not a legal conclusion; everyday language, admissible (Long)	Admissible
Testimony that Hu pled guilty to honest services fraud	Prejudicial, irrelevant	Defense opened the door to references to Hu’s plea	Admissible
Luu/Huynh opinions that Ma murdered Kong or was untrustworthy	Improper lay opinion	Testimony cumulative or Ma admitted lying; harmless error if any	Even if error, harmless
Sufficiency of evidence for firearm counts and honest services fraud	Insufficient evidence	Judicial admission, co-conspirator testimony, surveillance/DNA, and evidence of gifts/official acts support convictions	Sufficient evidence; convictions affirmed

United States v. Tamman, 782 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2015) (coconspirator statement and statement-against-interest admissibility)
United States v. Skeet, 665 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 1982) (permissible scope of lay witness opinion about character/reputation)
United States v. Long, 534 F.2d 1097 (3d Cir. 1976) (common-language labels not necessarily impermissible legal conclusions)
United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511 (9th Cir. 1998) (opening-the-door doctrine for testimony about guilty pleas)
United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007) (harmless-error review)
United States v. Inzunza, 638 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error analysis)
United States v. Bentson, 947 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1991) (judicial admissions by counsel)
United States v. Stoddard, 150 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to government for sufficiency review)
United States v. Fleming, 215 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2000) (factual impossibility not a defense to conspiracy)
United States v. Ramirez-Robles, 386 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2004) (co-conspirator testimony can suffice absent incredible/unsubstantial testimony)
United States v. Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2009) (implicit quid pro quo and honest services theory)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (context for honest services law and limitations)