Pursuant t o Sev enth Cir cuitInt ernal O perati ng Procedu re 1 6( b), this a p p eal w as subm it ted t o the panel ofj ud ges that disposed ofLi’ s directap p ea l ofhis convict ion and sent ence. S ee Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Y u T i a n Li, 61 5 F .3d 75 2 (7t h C ir . 20 1 0 ). N ei the r par t y ha s i nc l uded i n i t s br i efa s t at em en ti ndi c at i ng th a t o ra l a rg u m en t is n ec es sa ry , see Fe d. R. A pp. P. 34 ( a) ( 1) an d Ci rc ui tRul e 34 ( f ) , an d upon r evi ew ofthe br i ef s and the r e c or d a nd consider a t i ono fthe s t a nd a r ds s e tf or th i n Fe d. R. App. 34 ( a) ( 2) , the pan el ha s det er m i ne d t hator al ar gum en t is unneces sar y to the re sol ution ofthi s app eal

. The app eal was the r e f or e s ub m i t t e d o n the br i e f s a nd the r e c or d.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 1231 Y U T I AN L I, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v.
U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin

. No . 10- C- 810

—WilliamC. G riesbach , Judge

.
S UBMIT TED J UNE 21, 2011

— D ECIDED A UGUS T 4, 2011 12 N o. 11

- 1231 Befo re E AS T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd R OV NERa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Ci r c u i tJu dge

. Yu Ti an Li o w ned and operat ed a re st au ra n t in D eP er e, W isc on sin . A n an on ym ou s t ip l ed the FBI to co nd uct s u rv ei l l ance o fLi, wh om they obs er ved r egul ar l y t ra ns port i ng ab out f our peopl e ba ck and fo rth bet w een hi s ho m e a nd the re staurant. W hen Li conse nted to a sea rch ofh is ho m e, autho ri ti es deta i n e d th r e e p e o p l e wh o we r e i l l e g a l l y p r e s e n ti n t he U ni ted S tat es. They a l so f ound w hat loo ke d l i ke a m ake

shi ft dor m i tor y in Li’ s ba sem ent a nd ga ra ge, with m attr ess es on the fl oor an d co i n-o perat ed l aund rym achi nes i n the base m ent. A j ury convi cted Li o ftwo ofthr ee counts ofi l l egally ha rb o r i ngo r s hi e l di ngi l l e g a l a l i e ns i n v i o l a t i o n o f8 U. S

. C. § 1 32 4(a )( 1) ( A ) ( i i i )

. The di str i ct c ourtse ntenced Li to fifte en m onths ofi m pri sonm ent o n each count, to be ser ved co ncurr entl y, and tw o year s ofsup er vi sed r el eas e. The c o ur t al so o r der ed th athe pa y $ 10,000 in fi ne s an d f or f ei t hi s ho use. Thi s Courtaffi rm ed the convi cti on on ap p ea l. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Yu Ti an Li, 615 F. 3d 752 (7th C ir. 2010). Li fi l ed a m oti on in d istr i ct c ourtto vac ate hi s co nvi cti on pursuant to 28 U

. S. C. § 2 255, ar gui ng tha t hi s co unsel was i ne ff ec ti ve i n the f o l l o wi ngf o urways : b y pr o po sing an in cor re ct j ury i nstr ucti on; by f ai l i ng to o bj ect to vi deota ped te st i m o ny o fthe w i tn es se s ag ains t Li ; b y f ai l i ng to en su r e t h a t a lan gu ag e b ar rie r d id n otp re ve n t h im f r o m c o m m uni ca ting wi thLi ; a nd fi na l l y, b y pr ev en ting L i from testifying on his ow n be ha lf

. Th e d istri ct cou rt rej ecte d each o fthes e a rgum ents and Li a pp eal s.N o. 11

- 1231 3 W hen a dist ri ct c ourtd en ies a pet i ti on under § 22 55, w e re vie w f act fi nd i ngs forcl earer ro r and i ssues o fl aw d e n ov o. B ethel v . U n ited S ta tes , 45 8 F

. 3d 711, 71 6 ( 7th Cir

. 20 06)

. To s ucceed on a cl aim fo r i neff ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel, Li m us t show both that “his att o r n ey’s per f o r m an ce was o bj ec ti ve l y de fi ci ent

— i n other w or ds, that i t fel l o utsi de the w i de ra nge of com petent re presenta ti on

— and that he was prej ud i ced by the s ubpar re prese ntati on. ” U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 63 5 F. 3d 909, 91 5 ( 7t h C ir. 20 11) ( ci tingSt r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U

. S. 66 8, 6 87

- 96 ( 19 84 ) )

. I n o r dert o e st ab l i shp r ej udi ce , he m ust s how thatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty that but f orhi s counsel ’ s m i sta kes , the re sul t o fthe proceedi ngs b el ow w oul d have been diff er ent, such that th e p ro c ee d in gs w er e fu n d am en ta lly u n fair or u n re liab le. St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S

. at69 4. To r eflect the w i de ra nge of c om p et en t l e g al s tr at eg ies an d to av oid th e p itfa lls of r ev i ew i n hi nds i g ht, o ur r ev i ew o f an at to r ne y ’ s p erf or m ance i s hi ghl y defer enti aland re fl ects a str ong pres umpt i o n tha tc o un s e l ’ s c o nd uc tf a l l s wi thin the wi de ra n ge of re as on ab le p ro fes sio n al a ss ist an c e. Id. a t 689. “The de f e nd a ntmus to v e r c o me the p r e s umpt i o n tha t, unde r the circum st an ce s, the c ha l l en g ed ac ti o n mi g ht be consi dered so und tr i alst ra tegy. ” Ko o ns v . U nited Sta tes , 639 F. 3d 348, 351 (7 th C ir. 20 11)

. S o l ong as an at torney ar ti cul ate s a st ra teg ic rea son f ora deci si on that was so u n d atth e t im e itw as m ad e, th e d ec isio n ge n er a l ly ca nnot suppo r t a cl ai m o fi ne ff ec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o unse l. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ci e s l owsk i, 410 F.3d 353 , 360 (7th C ir. 2005 ). See a lso U ni t e d St at e s v. La t hrop , 63 4 F

. 3d 931, 93 7- 38 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ), petiti o n fo r cert. filed, ( U

. S. J un e 13, 20 11)4 N o. 11

- 1231

R e c or d c i t a t i on s a r e t o the di s t r i c tc ou r tc a s e i n thi s m a t t er, 2 N o. 10- C-810. (N os. 10-1104 4, 10A 1145 ) (noting th at, provid ed cou ns el’ s r ea so ns f o r no t que st i o ni ngfur th erwer e no t “s o f aro ffthe w al l thatwe can r efuse the usualdefer ence that w e g i ve tact i caldeci si ons by counsel, h is perf or m ance wil l not qu ali fy as deficient.”). W e co nsi der fi rs t L i’ s a rgum ent that hi s co unsel sh o ul d ha ve pr o po se d a s pec i fi c i nt en t i ns tr uct i o n. B ecau se th ere w as no c o n t r o lli ng case law nor p attern j ury i nstr ucti on f oral i en- harbo ri ng in the S eve nth Cir cui t, Li ’ s t ri alco unsel pro p osed a j ury i nstr ucti on m odel ed aftero ne used i n the Ele venth C i rcui t. See ( R. 63 , p. 17 & R. 75, p. 7)

. U si ng a var i ati on of the Ele venth 2 C irc u it’s p at te rn , th e d ist ric t c ou rtins tr u c te d : To sust ai n each charg e o fharborin g an i l l ega l al i en f orpurpose ofco m m er cialadvantag e o r pri vate fi na nc i alg ain i n v i o l at i o n o f8 U. S

. C. § 1 32 4( a) ( l ) ( B ), the g ove rnm ent m ust pro ve the fol l owing f our el em en ts be yo n d a re as on ab le d ou b t: Fi rst, that the a l i en nam ed i n the i nd i ctm ent e nter ed o r r e ma i n e d i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n v i o l a t i o n o fth e l a w; S e c o nd , tha tth e de f e nd a ntkno wi ng l y c o nc e a l e d, harbo re d, orshel ter ed fro m d ete cti on the nam ed alie n w ith in th e U n ite d Sta te s; T h ird , th at th e d e f e n d an t e ith er kn ew or a c te d in re ckl ess di sr ega rd of t he f act that the nam ed al i en enter ed or re m ained i n the U ni ted S tat es i n vi ol ati on o fthe l a w; a ndN o. 11

- 1231 5 Four th, thatthe defe nd ant co m m i tted such off ense f orthe pu rpos e o fco m m er c i aladvantag e o r pri vate fi na nc i alg ain. (R . 75, p . 7). Th is lan gu ag e re flec ts th e s ta tu te its elf w hi ch defi nes the cr i m i nal actas : knowing ori n re ckl ess di sr ega rd o fthe f act that an al i en has com e t o, ente red, orr em ai ns i n the U ni ted St ate s in vi ol ati on o fl aw , co nceal s, harbor s, o r sh iel d s from de tect ion, or attem p ts to con ceal, ha rbor, orshi eld fr om detec ti on, such a l i en i n any pla ce, i nc l udi nga ny b ui l di ngo r an y m ea ns o ft r an spo r ta ti o n; 8 U

. S. C

. A

. § 1324 (a)( 1)(A )( ii i)

. Li’s bri efst ate s that co unsel sho uld have r equeste d a “ speci fi c i nten t” i nstr ucti on, but f ai l s t o speci fy what ad dit i onall anguage the j ury i nstr ucti on s houl d have conta i ned orhow requi ri ng intent would have changed th e n at u re of th is c as e a t a ll. U nd erthe St r i ck l andst andard, we cer tainly c annot say that i t was o utsi de the re al m o fr eas onabl e pr ofess i onal ass i sta nce for L i ’ s co unsel to pro pose a j ury i nstr ucti on s i mi l a r t o th a t u s e d b y th e E l e v e n th C i r c u i t an d re f l e c t i ngthe g e ne r a l i nt e ntr e qu i r e men ti n s e v e r a l o ther c irc u its , w h er e th er e w as n o c on tr ollin g l aw in t h is C i r c u i t
. See, e.g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Khanan i, 50 2 F

. 3d 1281 , 1287( 11th Cir

. 20 07) (j u ry o nl y instr ucted thati t m ust fi nd thatdefendant knowing l y harbor ed al i ens a nd that defen dan t k ne w ora ct ed i n r ec k l es s di sr eg ar d o fthe6 N o. 11

- 1231

The j ur y i ns t ru c t i ons i n thi s c as e i nc l uded a n e xplanat i on 3 tha t “[t] he w or d w illfu lly, as tha t term is u sed in th e in d ictme n t o r i n th e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , m e a n s th a t th e a c t w a s c o mm i t t e d v ol un t a r i l y a nd pu r po s e l y, wi th the s pe c i fi c i nt e ntt o do som ethi ng the l aw f orbids, thati s, w ith bad purp ose ei ther t o dis obe y or di s re gar d t he l aw. ” Th e i ns t ru c t i ons f or the a l i e n h a rb o r i n g c o u n ti n c l u de d i n the j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , h o weve r, s poke on l y of “ knowi ngl y” and di d noti nc l ude the ter m “w il lfull y. ” Khan a ni, 502 F. 3d at 1287. alie n ’s s ta tu s) ; U nited Sta tes v. D ejesus-B a tres , 41 0 F

. 3d 3 15 4 , 1 6 2 ( 5 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s p e c i fi c i n t e n tt o v i o l a t e t he im m igrati on law s is not req uired to prove ali en harb or in g); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. D eguzman , 1 33 F ed. Appx. 5 0 1 , 5 0 6 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( no t i ng, i n a n o n- pr e c e denti al opi ni on, thatspecific i ntent i s no t nec ess ar y t o prove il legal ha rboring ch arge). Li ar gues that had hi s tr i al counsel don e bette r r e s e a r c h, h e woul d h a v e u nc o v e r e d c a s e s wh i c h s up ported a s peci fi c i ntent i nstr ucti on. The cas es he ci tes , h ow ev er , bot h inv ol v e a s p ec ific in te n t in st ru c tio n in case s invol vi ng the t ra nsport ati on o r i m port i ng o fi l l ega l alie n s. U nited Sta tes v. P a rm lee, 42 F. 3d 387, 391 (7th Cir. 19 94 ), U nited S t a tes v. Ngu yen , 73 F. 3d 887 (9th C ir. 1995). I n tho se c as es the c o ur ts e xpr es se d conce r n abo ut var i ous hy potheti calsi tuati ons i n w hi ch so m eone l i ke a t axi d rivero r boato perat orm i ght t ra nsportan a l i en w ith ou t a n y in te n t t o v iola te th e la w . For e x am p le, in Ngu yen , the cou rt exp ressed conc ern ab ou t exp osu re to pu ni shm ent fora boato perat orwh o dep ar ted fro m a c o a s t a l p o r twi th pe r man e nt
- r e s i de nta l i e ns o n b o a r d,N o. 11

- 1231 7

en tered i nt erna tional w aters a n d then return ed to shore at a loca tio n ot h er th an a d es ign at ed p or t o f en tr y. Ngu yen , 73 F. 3d at 893. The Parmelee cou rt exp ressed conc ern about a cab dri verwh o, i n a r outi ne co m m erci altr ansac tio n, tra n sp or te d an ind ivid u al w h o a n n ou n c ed h is illeg al s ta tu s d u rin g t h e c ou rs e o f th e rid e. P a rm elee, 42 F. 3d at 391, 39 3. W i thout say i ng so , b oth cour ts w er e e xpressing co ncer n abo ut the unique nature of tr anspor ta tion

— th at it in vo lve s a tra n sie n t s itu at ion in wh ic h the t r an spo r te r c o ul d l ea r n abo utthe i l l eg als ta tu s i n m edia res , a nd ha ve no way t o c o m pl et e th e i nno ce nt tr an sp or t w ith ou t viola tin g th e law

. It is m o r e d i f ficu lt t o im ag in e a sit u at ion in w h ich on e c ou ld kn ow in gly harbo r a know n i l l ega l al i en witho ut an intent to vio lat e t h e la w . I f th er e w er e s u c h a s itu at ion , th e e vid en ce in th is case d oes not refl ect it. A t t r ia l, th e j urors hear d evi dence thato ne o fthe i l l egal a l i ens who l i ved at Li’ s ho use f orse ver alm onths divul ged hi s s tatus as an illeg al a lien t o L i. T h ey als o h ea rd h ow h e s h u tt led h is tenant/em plo yee s ba ck and fo rth bet w een t h e g ar age and the r est aurant, how the cur tai ns o fthe house re m ai ned cl ose d at a l l ti m es, how the d efendant r efu s e d t o t e l l i nv e s t i g a t i n ga g e n t s th e n a me s o fh i s e mplo yee s, and that the i l l ega l e m p loyees were not ask ed to com ple te any paper w or k, norwe re theyl i ste d on any wage orem plo ym ent r eco rds s ubm i tte d to the s tat e. C er ta in ly th er e is r oo m t o ar gu e th at L i’s c ou n se l sh ou ld have r e qu e s t e d a s pe c i fi c i nt e nt i ns t r uc t i o n. Th e c a s e s o n tr an spo r tingwer e cl o se e no ug h t o s up p orta n a r g um en t a n d , h a d h e l o o k e d fu r th e r, he ma y h a v e f o u n d s o me ev en clo se r. See, e.g., Un i t e d S t a t e s v . You , 3 82 F. 3d 958,8 N o. 11

- 1231 96 6 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( i n a ha rboring ca se , the c o ur t i ns t r uc t e d the j ur y tha t i t mus t fi nd tha t a pp e l l ants had acte d wi th“ th e pur po se o fa vo i di ng[ th e al i en s’ ] detecti on byi m m i gr ati on a uthor i ti es

— an i nstr ucti on sy no ny m o us wi thha vinga ct ed wi thne ce ss ar y i nt ent as r equi r ed i n Ngu yen . ”) Eve n wer e i t er r o r f or Li’s cou ns el not to ask for a d if fe r e n t instru ction, how ever, Li has no t dem onst ra ted that t h e propose d i nstr ucti on had any adver se eff ect on Li ’ s defense. A s we note d a b o ve, the evid en ce clearly ind icated that Li’s covert ac ts wer e ta k eni n a p urp ose fula tt empt t o v i o l at e th e l aw. The j ur y was a lready i ns tr uct ed th atthe de f en dan t ha d t o know i ng l y c o nc ea l the a l i en s f r o m de te ct i o n a nd that he had to kno w o r act i n re ckl ess di sr ega rd o f th eir illega l st at u s. H ad th e jur y b e en ex p licit ly i ns tr uct ed th at i t ha d t o fi nd tha t th e defen dan t spe ci fi ca l l y i nt en ded to e ng ag e i n the pr o sc r ibe d a ct i o n, the r esul t o fthe tr i alwould have been the s am e. N ex t, w e con side r Li’s argum en t tha t his cou ns el’ s r epr es en ta ti o n fel l s ho r t when he f ai led to o bj ec t to the use ofvi deotaped te sti m ony ofthe w i tness es aga i nst hi m . Al th o ug h the Si xth A m en dm en t g ua r an te es a de f en dant the ri ght t o confro nt w itn es ses ag ai nst hi m , the use ofpre - re cor ded depositi on t est i m ony does not vi ol ate th a tr i g h twh e r e th e wi t n e s s i s u n a v a i l a b l e f o r t r i a l a nd the defendant had a pri oro pp or tuni ty f orcr oss - exam i nati o n. C raw

f or d v

. Was hi ngt on , 541 U .S. 36 , 68 (2 00 4), U nited St at e s v. M cGowan , 590 F.3d 44 6, 45 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). In thi s c a s e , the g o v e r nme nta nt i c i pa t e d tha tthe thr ee wi t ne s s e s ag a i ns tLi

— th e r es ta ur an t wor k er s f o und l i vi ng i n Li’ s ho use

— wo u l d be u n a v a i l a b l e a tth e t i meN o. 11

- 1231 9

I t i s no t a t a l l c l e a r whe the r the s e wi t ne s s e s c ou ld be 4 dee m ed un ava i l abl e f or Confro nt at i on Cl aus e purpo s es pur s ua n tt o C ra w

ford

. Su c h a det er m i nat i on would be bas ed o n the s pec i fi c f ac t s s ur ro undi ng the ir r em oval an d t he gove rn m en t’s a tt em p ts t o sec u re th ei r t es tim o n y . S ee, e.g ., U n i te d Sta t es v. Ti ra do- Tirado , 56 3 F .3d 11 7, 12 3 -2 4 (5t h C ir . 20 0 9 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Y i da , 4 9 8 F .3d 94 5 , 95 4 -5 5 (9t h C ir . 20 0 7 ); U n ite d S tat es v. G on zale s , 4 3 6 F

. 3 d 5 6 0 , 5 7 7

- 7 9 ( 5 th Ci r. 2006 ). I n a ny event w e need not m ake thi s determ inat ion as Li w aiv ed h i s r i ghtt o c onfro ntthe witne s s es an d had the r i ght to d o so . U n i te d S tat es v. C ooper, 24 3 F .3d 41 1 , 41 8 (7t h C ir . 20 0 1 ). o ft r i al

. Al lthr ee wer e i n the Uni te d S ta te s i l l eg al l y a nd a t th e t i me o fth e p r e - t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e , o n e h a d a l r e a dy be enr emov ed an d the gov ernm en t an ti ci pat ed th atthe othe r tw o w oul d fo l l ow suitsho rt ly. I n anti ci pati on o f 4 thei r una vail abi l i ty at tr i al, the gov er nm ent depose d ea cho fthe thr ee po te nt i alwi tn es se s. The de fend an t atten ded ea ch deposi ti on with hi s a tto rneywh o had ampl e o pportuni tyt o que st i o n a nd c r o ss - ex ami ne the w i tness es. I ni ti al l y Li ’ s atto rneyhad obj ecte d to the deposi ti ons, but the n i nfo rm ed the cour t that he ha d a “ 180 degre e ch an g e i n my po si ti o n, ” an d tha t f o r str at eg i c r ea so ns h e t h ou gh t itbe st for h is c lien t t h at th e v id eo ta p ed d ep os iti on t est i m ony be pr ese n te d i n l i eu o fl i ve tes ti m ony. ( R. 10 9, p. 7) . C ou nsel ’ s theor y was thatthe w i tness es had not t est i fi ed to anythi ng parti cul ar l y incri m i nati ng, an d there for e Li was b et te r o ffwi ththe i r t es ti m o ny l ock ed i n as i s, r atherthan h av in g them r e- exam i ned i n fro nt of t he j ury afterthe gov er nm ent had t i m e t o10 N o. 11

- 1231

as se ss Li ’ s th eo r y o fthe c as e. Li ’ s co uns elfur th ere xp l a i n e d h i s s t r a t e g y a s f o l l o ws : “ Ith i n ki ti s u n f a i r t o my cl i ent t o have these witnes ses cal l ed l i ve w hen the gov er nm ent has see n th e o pp or tuni ty

— has s een ho w Iam g o i n gt o h a n d l e th e m . . . [ a n d ] kn o ws e s s e n t i a l l y w h a tmy ar gu m en t is o r at l eas t they m ay be abl e t o fi gure o ut by l oo ki ng atthe tr anscr i pt. ” Id. S pec i fi ca l l y, c o uns ele xpla i ned, “[ t] here were questi ons Idi dn ’ t a sk because the w i tness tes ti fi ed i n a way that Itho ught was advantageo us to m y cl i ent. So I sto pp ed. I didn ’t c ross. ” Id. at12

. Li ’ s co uns elo bj ec te d t o pa rt i cul arpo r ti o ns o fthe t r an scr i pts and, afterr uli ngs b y the di str i ct c ourtj ud ge, som e por ti on s w ere r edacted f ortr i al

. I n shor t, bas ed on co u n se l’s re as on ed st ra te gy , L i ag re ed to w aiv e h is ri ght t o c o nfr o ntthe wi t ne s s e s p r o v i de d tha tthe g o ver nm ent woul d not ca l l any ofthe three d eponents to th e s ta n d attria l. L i’s c ou n se l art icu lat ed a re as on ab le str ate gy to w hi ch a cour t m ust gi ve defe re nce. Li does not ar gue that hi s cou n se l d i d not hav e a m ple o pp or tuni ty to que st i o n a nd c r o ss - ex ami ne e ac h wi tn ess in the prese nce o fthe defe nse. Furtherm or e, the dist ri ct c ourtcon d ucted an e xtensi ve ex ami na tion o fLit o a ss ur e th athi s wai ve r o fhi s co nfro n ta tio n rig h t w as kn ow in g a n d vo lu n ta ry . Id. atpp. 23- 39

. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tj u d g e e n g a g e d i n th i s c o l l o quy d ire c tly w it h L i d es p ite th e fa c t t h at in t h is C irc u it a “d efendant’s at torney c an waive hi s cl i ent’ s S i xth A m endm en t co nfr o nt at i o n r i g hts o l o nga s th e defen dan t do es no t d i ss en t f r o m hi s at to r ne y ’ s dec i si o n, a nd s o l o ng as it ca n be sa id th at th e a tt or n ey ’ s d ec isio n w as a leg itim ate tr i alta cti c o r part ofa prudent tr i alst ra tegy. ” C o o per,N o. 11

- 1231 11 2 4 3 F

. 3 d a t4 1 8

. L i ’ s r i g h t s w er e we l l p r o t e c t e d a n d we ca nno t sa y tha t hi s at to r ne y was i ne ff ec ti ve f o r a do pting hi s a rt i cul ate d str ate gy. O n a r el ate d m att er, Li cl ai m s that hi s a tto rney was i ne ff ec ti ve f o r f ai l i ngt o o bj ec t to a r ea di ngo fthe tai l end ofo ne video taped deposi ti on. A s a gr eed to at the pr e- tr i alco nfere n c e, attr i althe gov er nm ent pl aye d the v i deotaped deposi ti on t est i m ony ofthr ee w itness es. Th e fi r s tt wo p r o c e e de d u nr e mar k a b l y. T he v i de o t a pe of t h e fin al w itn es s, h ow ev er , m alfu n c tio n ed sh or tly bef or e the end o f the tape. The di str i ct c ourtj ud ge sugges ted thatdefen d an t’ s co unsel si m plyr ead the re m ain d er of h is q u es tio n s o n cr os s-e x am in at i o n w h ile the j ud ge re ad the w itness’ answers. The pro secuto r r ea d hi s f ew qu es ti o ns o fr e- di r ect at the e nd. I n a l l, the p or tio n of th e t es tim on y re ad to t h e ju ry rep re se n te d six orse ven page s o fa th i rty- page deposi ti on. Li ’ s co unsel expla i ned on the r eco rd, thathe ha d not obj ecte d fo r str ate gi c r eas ons as he fel t the j ury h ad s een the m ost im p or ta n t p or tio n of th e d e p o sit ion an d th at h e d id not w an t the j ury to see hi m o bj ect to som ethi ng tha t was no t i m po r ta nt
. The di st r i ctc o ur t j udg e g av e th e de f e nd a nt the o pp o r t un i t y t o r e c a l l the j ur y a nd pl ay th e re m ain d er of th e t a p e ( p a st th e p or tio n of th e m alfunc ti o n) , b utthe de f en dan t, a fte r c o ns ul ting hi s co uns e l, de c l i ne d. Feder alRule o fCri m i na l P ro cedure 15 does not r equi r e th atde po si ti o ns b e vi deo ta ped an d there i s no c o ns t i t ut i o na l r i g htt o hav e a de po s i t i o n v i de o t a pe d. Pr i o r t o t he a va i l ab i l i tyo fv i deo ta pe te ch no l o g y, r ea di ng12 N o. 11

- 1231 a deposi ti on i nto the r eco rd was a c om m on m etho d of enter i ng deposi ti on tes ti m ony of an unavai l abl e w itness in to th e re c or d

. Se e, e . g. , U nited S ta t e s v. Knop , 70 1 F

. 2d 67 0, 675 ( 7th Ci r . 19 83 )

. Li ha s f ai l ed to m ak e a su ff ici en t sh ow in g of p rej u d ice . Th e jud ge r e a s on ab ly u se d h is disc re ti on t o kee p the tria l m ovi ng al ong, and def ense co unse l di d no t o bj ec t to the pr o ce dur e. F i na l l y, the j udg e g av e th e pr ec au ti o na r y i ns tr uct i o n tha t “[ n] o th i ng I say n ow , an d n ot h in g I sa id or d id d u rin g t h e t ria l, is m eant to i nd i cat e an y opi ni on o n m y par t about w hat the f acts ar e o r about w hat y our ver dictsho uld be

. ” ( R. 75 , p. 2)

. J uror s a re pre sum ed to f ol l ow li m iting o r curat i ve in st ru c ti o n s u n les s t h ey ca n n otbe ex p ec te d rea so n ab ly t o d o s o. U nited Sta tes v. B a rnh a rt, 599 F. 3d 737, 74 6 n .8 (7th C ir. 2010). M oreover, th e cou rt offered Li an op p ortu ni tyt o b r i ngthe jury bac kt o r epl aythe e nd o fthe vi deotape, but he decl i ned. Li h as f ai l ed to dem onst ra te that hi s counsel ’ s acti ons re l ate d t o the vi de o d ep osi ti on w er e d efic ien t o r p rej u d icia l. The defe nd ant next ar gues that a l angu ag e ba rr i erl ed to ine ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. Su b su m ed w ith in thi s a rgum ent i s defendant’s ea rl i erse parat e cl ai m that he di d no t k no wi ng l y o r i nt en ti o na l l y aba ndo n h i s r i g ht to tes ti fy. The di str ict cour t j ud ge w ho pre si ded o ver s e v e r al h ea rin gs an d a tw o-d ay tria l co n sid er ed th is ar gum ent a nd co ncl ud ed that no s uch com m unica ti on bar ri erexi ste d. W e do not fi nd thi s con c lusi on t o be cl ear l y e rr oneo us. The co urt provi ded Li w i th a tr ansl ato r i n h is n ati ve l an g ua g e. Lipa r ti ci pat ed i n the t r i ala nd ne ve r no ti fi ed th e co ur t o f an y pr o bl ems unde r st an di ng th e p ro c ee d in gs or h is c ou n se l. G a llo -V a squez v. U n i t edN o. 11

- 1231 13 Sta tes , 4 02 F

. 3d 79 3, 7 99 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( no ting th ata pe ti ti o ne r ’ s f ai l ur e to c o m pl ain abo uta c o m m uni ca ti o n pr o bl em ca l l s i nt o question whe th ers ucha pr o bl em r ea l l y e xi st ed)

. The di st r i ctc o urt a ls o c o nsi dered the f act that Li l i ved i n the U ni ted S tat es f or twe nty y ea r s an d, f o r s i x y ea r s, r ana r es ta ur an t i n a suburb ofGree n Bay, W i sco nsi n w here he woul d have ha d t o c o m m uni ca te wi thpa tr o ns , e m pl o y ee s an d v e n d o r s w h o a r e n o tC h i n e s e . A ft e r L i e x p r e s s e d s o me uncert ai nty abou t w hethero r not to tes ti fy, he was gi ven t i m e t o consul t with hi s a tto rney and then e ngage d i n an e xtensi ve col l oquy with the cour t: M R. GE A RY : W el l, I thi nk m y cl i ent afte r d iscussi ng i t with m e ha s a dvis ed m e th ath e w ish es to w aiv e h is right to testify an d m ove forw ar d w ith th e t ria l. TH E C OU RT: Okay. M r. Li, i s that c or re ct? TH E D EFEN DA N T: Corr ect. T HE C O UR T : Ok a y . I n o t he r wo r ds , y o u do unde r st an d you h av e th e r i g ht to te st ify, bu t a fte r giv in g it thought and afterl i ste ni ng to yo ur att or ney, you’ ve deci ded not to; i s that c or re ct? TH E D EFEN DA N T: Corr ect. Cor re ct. TH E CO U RT: N ow, d id anyonem akeany thre ats aga i ns t you to getyo u to gi ve up y o urr i ghtt o t es ti fy i n fro nt ofthi s j ury?14 N o. 11

- 1231 TH E D EFEN DA N T: N o. T HE C O UR T : An d di d a n y o n e ma k e a n y p r o mi ses to yo u to ge t y ou t o do so ? TH E D EFEN DA N T: N o. TH E CO U RT: I s th is yo u r ow n d ec isi on after co ns i der i ngthe advi ce o fy o ur at to rn ey ? Is it you r ow n d e c isi on then not to tes ti fy? TH E D EFEN DA N T: Yes. THE COU RT: O kay

. A nd I canre ad t o the j ury th e in st ru c tio n t h en th at te lls th em th at y o u ca nno t be puni sh ed f o r no t te st i fy i ng, tha t i t’ s not evi dence f oryo u got [ si c] to t e s t i fy, a nd i t ’ s n o tt o b e c o ns i de r e d in a nywa y . Wo ul d y ou l i ke m e to read that i nstr ucti on to the j ury? TH E D EFEN DA N T: Yes. (R. 124, p. 225-26). W e can not fin d t h a t t he district cou rt er re d in i ts f actual fi nd i ng that ther e w as n o lan guage bar ri erthat would have preve nted Li f ro m the eff ecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel o r f ro m te sti fyi ng. Fi nal l y, Li ar gues that hi s m oti on under 2 8 U.S

. C. § 2 255 w as i m proper l y deni ed w i thout a hea ri ng. A di str i ct co ur t has d is cr et i o n t o “ den y a n e vi den ti ar y he ar i ng wher e th e m o ti o n, fi l es , a nd r ec o r ds o fthe c as e co nc l usi vel y s how thatthe pri sone r i s e nti tl ed to no re l i ef

. ” KoonsN o. 11

- 1231 15 v. U nited Sta tes , 6 39 F. 3d 34 8, 3 54

- 35 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)

. The j udg e who den i ed th e m o ti o n was th e sa m e o ne who pr es i ded o ve r the case, r ev i ewe d the pr o po se d j ur y i nstr ucti ons, adm i tte d the t aped de posi ti ons, and thr ough co l l o qui es c ou l d a ss es s th e defen dan t’ s unde r st an di ng o fthe Eng l i shl an g ua g e an d hi s unde r st an di ngof the proce edi ngs as tr ansl ate d. H e w as i n the best p os i ti on to concl ud e that a n evi denti ar y hea ri ng would not provi de any m or e info rm ati on that co uld dem onst ra te the v i abi l i ty ofthe defe nd ant’ s cl ai m , and thus di d not abuse hi s di scr eti on i n denyi ng a hear i ng. A s we have detect ed no unre aso nabl e e rror s i n ass i stance, we cannot concl ud e that the re w as any c um ula ti ve eff ect f ro m thes e e rr or s that would h ave am ounted to i ne ff ec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns ela s ev al ua te d unde r the St r i ck l andpa ram eters. Th e d ecision o f t he district cou rt i s A FFI RMED
.

8- 4- 11