United States v. Yang Chia Tien
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13066
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant Yang Chia Tien was indicted in the Northern District (2009) on three counts of bribing an ICE employee and in the Eastern District (2010) on one count of furnishing a forged passport; both cases were consolidated and proceeded before Judge Sharpe.
- Tien pleaded guilty in the Northern District to the bribery counts on January 19, 2010, without a written allocution; an interpreter was used and Tien reported taking multiple medications and said he understood only about "50 percent." The court accepted the plea after limited colloquy.
- Sixteen months later, on May 24, 2011, Tien pleaded guilty in the forgery case pursuant to a plea agreement; the court expressly incorporated the earlier plea colloquy into the record rather than re-establishing comprehension.
- Tien later moved to withdraw the first plea, asserting he did not fully understand his rights and that counsel had misled him; the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal the Second Circuit reviewed the bribery plea for harmless error (because Tien had moved to withdraw) and the forgery plea for plain error, and concluded both pleas were invalid due to insufficient inquiry into Tien’s understanding and the effects of his medications.
- The court vacated both convictions and remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing strict adherence to Rule 11 and the need to explore medication effects and actual comprehension on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court adequately ensured Tien understood the bribery plea under Rule 11 | Government: colloquy, use of interpreter, and Tien’s confirmations satisfied Rule 11; any issues harmless | Tien: medication and language problems left him unable to understand proceedings; plea not knowing/voluntary | Court: Error — district court failed to probe medication/language issues; plea vacated (harmless-error review failed) |
| Whether incorporation of prior plea colloquy satisfied Rule 11 for the later forgery plea | Government: (not argued on appeal) implicitly relied on incorporation and court observations | Tien: prior colloquy cannot substitute for a new, on-the-record determination of comprehension and medication effects | Court: Plain error — incorporation was insufficient; the later plea was vacated |
| Whether the court’s observation of defendant’s demeanor can substitute for explicit on-the-record responses | Government: demeanor and interpreter assurance suffice | Tien: demeanor is not a substitute for affirmative responses about understanding | Court: Rejected reliance on assumptions from observation; explicit recorded responses required |
| Whether medications known to the court require specific inquiry about side effects and comprehension | Government: general questions were adequate | Tien: court failed to ask which meds or their cognitive effects; thus inability to understand was not resolved on record | Court: Required further inquiry; failure to do so was reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (constitutional voluntariness requirement for guilty pleas)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (court must ensure plea is voluntary and intelligent)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (Rule 11 allocution role in ensuring voluntariness)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (standard for review of Rule 11 errors)
- Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (harmless-error standard for Rule 11 violations)
- Rossillo, 853 F.2d 1062 (2d Cir. — district court must probe when medication use is indicated)
- Garcia, 587 F.3d 509 (plain-error standard in Rule 11 context)
- Lora, 895 F.2d 878 (Second Circuit’s strict adherence to Rule 11)