Opinion ID: 2305923
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wing Tsang's statement

Text: The next challenged piece of evidence documents an August 1985 interview by New York City Police of one of the leaders of the Flying Dragons gang, Wing Tsang. Wing Tsang asserted that Appellant [23] confessed to him that he shot a woman at the Ho Sai Gai Restaurant in Philadelphia, and that Kwa Jai and Benson Luong were with him. His statement collaborated the information that Wong Kin Fung/Kwa Jai was the individual that went to the cash register. He provided descriptions of Appellant, Kwa Jai, and Benson Luong. Wing Tsang also revealed that he and another leader of the Flying Dragons had travelled to Philadelphia to meet with the owner of the Ho Sai Gai a few months after the shooting and informed him that Kwa Jai had been the shooter and that he had been killed in New York City. [24] At trial, Wing Tsang was not called to testify when it became apparent that he would assert his Fifth Amendment rights because he was not given immunity by New York State authorities regarding crimes for which he was being prosecuted. We need not decide the factual issue of whether the Commonwealth disclosed the statement at trial because we conclude that, even assuming non-disclosure, Appellant has failed to demonstrate a violation of Brady. [25] Ultimately, the question turns on the materiality of the statement. The statement has exculpatory value that could have led to an alternative defense theory of the case given that counsel could have attempted to develop a defense based on Wing Tsang's assertion that he and another Flying Dragons leader named Kwa Jai as the shooter, thus potentially clearing Appellant of direct liability for the murder. This theory, however, conveniently ignores the first half of the statement that indicates that Appellant confessed to Wing Tsang in great detail regarding his role as the shooter. Accordingly, the Commonwealth argues that the statement of Wing Tsang was not exculpatory, but instead, as initially noted by defense trial counsel, devastating to Appellant's case. Regardless of when the statement was revealed, we agree with the Commonwealth that the statement, as a whole, was not exculpatory, and therefore does not trigger the protections of Brady.