Opinion ID: 2305923
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Benson Luong's statement

Text: Appellant claims that Benson Luong, the Third Man, provided a statement upon his arrest that indicated, it was Kwa Jai who led the criminal acts. He threatened the victim, put a gun to her head, and shot her. Brief at 20. The document provided in support of his assertion, Supplemental Submission at Exhibit G, however does not include the cited statement and instead provides: Then Kwa Jai and [Appellant] went into the kitchen. Then I heard Kwa Jai call my name and I went toward the kitchen. When I got near the kitchen I heard a shot and when I got there I seen [sic] her on the floor with the phone. I got scared and ran away. Statement of Benson Luong, 4/20/89, at 3. The statement also reveals evidence that both Kwa Jai and Appellant had guns because they were gangsters and had guns all the time. Statement of Benson Luong, 4/20/89, at 3. Accordingly, Appellant's Brady claim based on Benson Luong's statement fails for two reasons. First, the statement could not have been disclosed prior to trial given that Benson Luong was not arrested and did not provide the statement until after Appellant's trial. Moreover, this statement does not exonerate Appellant from the role of shooter, but rather places Appellant in the kitchen with a gun at the time of the shooting. Accordingly, this claim fails. Appellant references elsewhere in his brief that Benson Luong provided different testimony at Ah Thank Lee's trial, implicating Kwa Jai as the shooter. However, non-disclosure of testimony at Ah Thank Lee's trial cannot constitute a Brady violation, because it did not exist at the time of Appellant's trial given that Ah Thank Lee was tried after Appellant.