X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Plano police stopped a vehicle driven by Tuan Pham, in which Wayne Joshua Lee was a passenger. A vehicle-mounted camera recorded the stop. Though the car was a rental, and the pair said they had spent the day in Houston after driving from Seattle. A search of the car’s trunk yielded a purple duffle bag filled with a large amount of cash that Lee said belonged to him. He refused to say where he got the money, but did say he brought it with him from Canada, where he was a resident. Police asked Pham if Lee got the cash from selling ecstasy, and Lee said, “yes.” Police also found a pad of paper with the words “190″ and “Dallas” written on it. Once the money was counted, there was a little over $190,000 in mostly $20 bills. A drug-sniffing dog alerted on five different kinds of narcotics, including methamphetamine. Lee was charged with money laundering. At his trial, an officer testified that, though there were mostly $20 bills, these bills were also banded together with other denominations, which is not the usual way banks band money. A customs agent testified that anyone entering the United States with more than $10,000 cash must declare it on a customs form. It was found that Lee had not made the declaration. Lee’s brother, John, testified in Lee’s defense. He stated that since Lee moved to Canada from Vietnam, Lee had lived with various friends and worked in various jobs. He had minimal expenses, and as was the custom with other Vietnamese expatriates, he converted much of his Canadian money into U.S. dollars and did not deposit it in a bank. Lee had asked for a leave of absence from his last job in order to travel. He had sold his house and cleared $30,000; he sold stock worth $85,000, and he got $27,000 in a bank loan. The brother also speculated that Lee could have gotten $100,000 in credit card cash advances, which would have totaled nearly $250,000. John did admit, though, that he had never seen Lee with so much cash. Lee’s friend and accountant testified that he was familiar with the Vietnamese tendency to rely on cash transactions. He guessed that Lee could have had up to $246,000 by the time he left on his vacation, though he admitted his guess was based on documents Lee gave him and that he had never seen Lee in possession of so much cash. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Lee challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. A person commits the offense of money laundering if he knowingly acquires or maintains an interest in, receives, conceals, possesses, transfers, or transports the proceeds of criminal activity. In this case, the indictment and jury charge authorized the jury to convict appellant of money laundering if he possessed or transported the proceeds of a criminal activity. The criminal activity alleged in the indictment was either the delivery of a controlled substance or a violation of the federal currency importation reporting requirements. The court also sets out the elements of the offense of transporting more than $10,000 in cash into the United States. The court concludes that there was evidence as to both of the theories upon which the jury was authorized to convict. The court then turns to whether Pham’s statement that the money came from Lee’s sale of ecstasy was a violation of his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. Lee argues that a non-testifying co-defendant’s out-of-court statement to a police officer is testimonial and is, therefore, barred by the Confrontation Clause. Since Pham’s statement was made before he was taken formally into police custody, the court looks to U.S. Supreme Court guidelines for determining what statements are testimonial. Some of the non-exclusive examples of testimonial statements are: 1. ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent � that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially; 2. extra-judicial statements contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as depositions, prior testimony, or confessions; and 3. statements made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. The court rejects the state’s interpretation that the statement did not result from an “interrogation” because Pham was not in custody at the jail or sitting down to give a statement after being given Miranda warnings. The court rules that “interrogation” should be considered in its colloquial, rather than any technical, legal sense. Police interrogation in the colloquial sense undoubtedly includes the question of an officer asking if the money was obtained from the illegal sale of drugs. “Today we conclude that the out-of-court statement of Pham, made in response to the questions of the officer during the roadside stop after [Lee] had been arrested, is also testimonial.” The court then begins a harm analysis, concluding that, without Pham’s statement about the source of the money, the state had to rely on weak circumstantial evidence to controvert Lee’s claim of legal ownership. OPINION:Thomas, C.J.; Thomas, FitzGerald and Mazzant, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.