Yu Tian Li v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16088
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Li owned a Wisconsin restaurant; FBI surveillance followed an anonymous tip showing him transporting several people regularly.
- Li consented to a home search; three occupants illegally present in the U.S. were detained.
- Authorities found a makeshift dormitory in Li's basement/garage with mattresses and coin-operated laundry machines.
- Li was convicted on two of three counts of harboring illegal aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii); sentenced to 15 months per count, concurrent, plus fines and forfeiture.
- Li challenged his conviction under § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance in four respects; the district court rejected the claims.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit applied Strickland, reviewing with deference to counsel’s strategic decisions and evaluating prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Li's counsel should have requested a specific-intent instruction | Li | Li's counsel lacked controlling Seventh Circuit law; should have pursued specific intent | No reversible error; strategy reasonable given no controlling law |
| Whether failing to object to videotaped testimony was ineffective assistance | Li | Voiced concerns about cross-examination; videotaped depositions permissible | Not ineffective; waiver strategy and Crawford framework satisfied |
| Whether language-barrier issues tainted counsel performance | Li | Court provided translator; Li participated; no barrier shown | No ineffective assistance; no language-barrier prejudice shown |
| Whether Li's waiver of confrontation rights via strategy was improper | Li | Attorney’s strategy to waive was legitimate trial tactic | Waiver valid; no Sixth Amendment violation shown |
| Whether denial of an evidentiary hearing on § 2255 was an abuse of discretion | Li | Record and judge’s evaluation render an evidentiary hearing unnecessary | No abuse; court could decide on the existing record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Khanani, 502 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (specific-intent requirement not required to harboring)
- United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2005) (specific intent not necessary to prove harboring)
- United States v. Deguzman, 133 Fed.Appx. 501 (10th Cir. 2005) (non-precedential; specificity of intent not needed)
- United States v. You, 382 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2004) (instruction tying to avoiding detection can satisfy intent element)
- United States v. Knop, 701 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1983) (read deposition testimony into record is permissible)
- United States v. Cooper, 243 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2001) (defendant may waive confrontation if strategy legitimate)