N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HUNG VAN TIEU, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50126

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00486-R -2 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ENAVIDES, ** B YB EE, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. A jury found Hung Va

n Tie u guilty

of one c ount of c onspira c y to c om m it a c c e ss-de vic e fra

ud, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1029(b)(2); two c ounts of a c c e ssde vic e fra ud, in viola

t i on of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1029(a)(2) and 2(a ); a nd one c o unt of 

# FIL ED AUG 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Fortuna

to P. B e nav ide s, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Fifth C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.a ggrav a t e d ide ntity the ft, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2(a ). W e have jurisdic tion ove r Tie u’ s a ppe a l pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e va c a te Tie u ’ s c onvic tions a

nd re m and for a

ne w tria l . During the tria l, on dire c t e xam ination, Tieu’ s attorne y que stione d him re ga rding som e of his a c tions tha t we re not c ha

rge d in the indic tm e nt. T he distric t judge twic e a dm onishe d

the attorne y

“ not to le a d the witne ss” and onc e not to re pe a t Tie u’ s te stim ony . De spite the se a dm onishm e nts, Tie u’ s attorne y c ontinue d to a s k le a ding que stions a nd re pe a t Tie u’ s te stim ony . Im m e d iate ly the re a fte r, the distric t judge inte rrupte d the attorne y to hold a side ba r, during whic h the judge told the attorne y : “ I am

just a dvising y ou on y our que stions a nd y our sta

te m e nts to the witne s s be fore the que stions. You a re now a be tting in perjury .” 1 Tie u’ s attorne y c e a se d his dire c t e xam inat ion of Tie u a nd unsuc c e ssfully

m ove d for a

m istria l. The attorne y

subse que ntly

sugge ste d tha

t the judge ha d c re a te d a

c o n flic t of inte re s t be twe e n the attorne y ’ s pe rsona l inte re st a nd his intere s t in re pre se nting his c lie nt, a nd twic e m ore unsuc c e ssfully m o ve d for a

m istria l. The judge instruc te d

1 Unbe k nownst to c ounse l, the judge ’ s a dm onishm e nt a ppa re ntly ste m m e d from a m isre c olle c t ion or m isunde rsta nding of Tieu ’ s te stim ony , during whic h the judge e rrone ously

c onc lude d

tha t Tie u ha d a d

m itte d to c e rta in fa c t s pe rta ining to the c ha rge s. 2the attorne y

tha t he ha d a n obliga tion to c ontinue his re pre se ntation of Tieu, and the attorne y

did so, inc luding c onduc ting a re dire c t e xam ination of Tieu. Tie u a rgue s on a

ppe a l tha t the judge ’ s “ pe rjury ” c o m m e nt c re a te d a

c onflic t of inte re st for his a

ttorne y tha t a dve rse ly

a ffe c te d the attorne y ’ s pe rform anc e , viola ting Tie u’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt rights. W e a g re e .

“ In orde r to pre va i l on a

n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c o unse l c la im ba se d on c onflic t of inte re st, a de fe nda nt m ust show tha

t ‘ a n a c tua l c onflic t of inte re st a dve rse ly a ffe c te d his la

w y e r’ s pe rform anc e .’ ” Unite d State s v . Misk inis , 966 F.2d 1263, 1268 (9th C ir. 1992) (quoting C uy le r v . Sullivan , 446 U.S. 335, 350 (1980)); se e a lso Mannhalt v. Re e d , 847 F.2d 576, 580 (9th C ir. 1988) (“ A lthough C uy le r involve d a

c o nflic t of inte re st be twe e n c lie nts, the pre sum

ption of pre

judic e e xte nds to a

c onflic t be twe e n

a c lie nt a n d his la wy e r’ s pe rsona l inte re st.” ). “ To e sta blish tha t a c onflic t of inte re st a d

ve rse ly a ffe c te d c ounse l’ s pe rform a n c e , the de fe nda n t ne e d only

show tha t som e e ffe c t on c ounse l’ s ha ndling of pa

rtic ula r a spe c ts of the tria l wa s like ly . ” Misk inis , 966 F.2d a

t 1268 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). “ Although a de fe nda nt who ra ise s a

n ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of c ounse l c la im

is ordina rily re quire d to show pre

judic e , pre

judic e is pre sum e d if the a lle ge d viola

tion is ba se d on a

n a c tua l c onflic t of inte re st.” Id. (inte rna l c ita tions om i tte d). 3He re , the judge told Tieu ’ s attorne y –in no unc e rta in te rm s–tha t he wa s a bout to viola te the la wby que stioning his c l ie nt re ga rding c e rta in c onduc t. Onc e the judge m a de this c om

m e nt, Tie u’ s attorne y

wa s c onflic te d be twe e n his inte re st in avoiding his own possible e xposure to c rim ina l lia

bility on the one ha

nd, a nd his inte re s t in c ontinuing to de p loy his pla nne d tria l stra

te gy on Tie u ’ s be ha l f, on the othe r. The re fore , the re wa s a n a c tua l c o nflic t of inte re st. Furthe r, the c onflic t like ly ha d a n a d ve rse e ffe c t on the attorne y ’ s re pre se ntation of Tieu . Tie u ne e d only show tha t “ som e e ffe c t on c ounse l’ s ha ndling of pa

rtic ula r a spe c ts of the tria l wa s like ly .” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d). He re , Tie u ’ s attorne y c o m ple te l y ha lte d

dire c t e xam ination of Tieu whe n the j udge m a de the unwa

rra nte d “ pe rjury ” c o m

m e nt. Tha

t Tie u’ s attorne y c ontinue d to re pre se nt Tie u for the re m a i nde r of the tria l , e ve n c o nduc ting a re dire c t e xam ination of Tieu, doe s not unde rm ine the c onc l usion tha t the dire c t e xam ination, a

t the ve ry le a s t, wa s a dve rse ly a ffe c te d by the c onflic t. Tie u’ s c onvic tions a

re thus VAC ATED, a

n d this m a tte r is R

EM ANDED for a ne wtria l. 2

2 B e c a use we va c a te Tie u’ s c onvic tions a nd re m and for a

ne w tria l on the ba sis of his c l a im

re ga rding the “ pe rjury ” c om

m e n t, we ne e d not c onside r his c la im that the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Tie u’ s pre -tria l re que st for substitution of c o unse l. 4