Chin Bick Wah v. United States, 15268.
| Decision Date | 09 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 15268.,15268. |
| Citation | 245 F.2d 274 |
| Parties | CHIN BICK WAH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James T. Davis, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Lloyd H. Burke, U. S. Atty., James B. Schnake, Marvin D. Morgenstein, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges.
This case deals with how a citizen of China, the appellant Chin Bick Wah, now also known as Helen Fong, made her way (or was brought) into the United States in 1952 from Hong Kong. Her age is now about 38.
She stands convicted of a conspiracy count involving the immigration laws. Also, she was convicted on a substantive count, the sixth in the indictment. In the latter count, the charge of the indictment is that on March 5, 1952, at Hong Kong she made false statements in her written application1 for the immigration visa and alien registration in that she stated:
1. She was married to Jonathan K. Yee;
2. Her passage was paid for by her husband Jonathan K. Yee;
3. She intended to join her husband Jonathan K. Yee in the United States.
A concurrent sentence of one year's imprisonment on each count was imposed.
On this appeal, with identical sentences, we need not examine both convictions, if we find one free from reversible error. Goldbaum v. United States, 9 Cir., 204 F.2d 74. We are satisfied from examining it that defendant's conviction on the conspiracy count was wholly proper and withstands appellant's claim of error. However, the substantive count conviction is the one we choose to discuss.
Now for some facts. Fong Wy Sum,2 herein William Fong, operates a milk store in San Francisco's Chinatown. He is a merchant of some consequence there. William is now about 49 years old. Jonathan Yee, now approximately 35 years old, who gained admission to the United States in 1939, testified that he is actually a first cousin of William Fong: that Fong in 1939 helped him (Jonathan) get into the United States under a false name and with false papers.3 The district attorney would draw the inference in the events with which we are here concerned that Yee was subject to blackmail and had to pursue about any motion that William dictated. Jonathan served in the army of the United States from May, 1944, until sometime in 1946. Generally, after returning to San Francisco from the army, and until 1952 at least, he worked for Fong in the milk business.
Possibly, economy of words can be achieved here by now setting up a marriage and divorce chronology of William Fong and Jonathan Yee:
_______ ___, 1924, William Fong marries Gee Kee Yip in China
She is brought to the United States in 1932
with one child, a daughter, born to this marriage
prior to 1932
September 8, 1947, Jonathan Yee at Reno, Nevada, marries Jean
Jow. She is an American born Chinese
May 11, 1951, Jonathan Yee at Reno divorces Jean Jow. Divorce
decree provides for custody and support of
three year old daughter Joanne
November 29, 1951, Jonathan Yee marries Chin Bick Wah (later
called Helen) in Hong Kong
May 31, 1952, Jonathan Yee and Chin Bick Wah remarry at
Reno.
October 24, 1952, William Fong at Reno divorces Gee Kee Yip, his
wife of 28 years.
July 28, 1953, Chin Bick Wah (Helen) divorces Jonathan Yee
at Reno.
October 1, 1953, William Fong marries Chin Bick Wah (Helen)
in San Francisco.
_______ ___, 1955, Jonathan Yee, remarries his first wife, Jean Jow,
a second child (a son) having been born to
Jonathan and Jean on June 2, 1952, a date on
which Jonathan was married to Helen.
We think it a fair assumption to state that resentment against William Fong and Chin Bick Wah by Jean Jow Yee and her sister, May Jow, and Fong's daughter Vivian probably enabled the government agents to get their case against William Fong and Chin Bick Wah started. The feet of these three women apparently were fixed firmly on the United State soil beyond chance of dislodgment.
Under the sixth count, the one against her alone, there was a failure of proof that Chin Bick Wah (henceforth usually referred to as Helen) knew that Jonathan Yee did not pay for her ticket from Hong Kong to San Francisco. On the second prong of the sixth count, it was charged the statement of Helen was false when she swore she was married to Jonathan Yee. That involves some difficult law. Does a party (assuming belief by the fact trier) who has participated in a sham marriage (lacking an intent to really marry) make a false statement when she says she is married? We shall lay this second prong to one side.4
Thus, we come to the third accused statement in the second count: that Helen at Hong Kong on March 5, 1952, in her application to the vice consul falsely stated under oath that she intended to join her husband, Jonathan K. Yee, in the United States (if she should gain admittance thereto). In her application she made the statement. Was it a false statement?
We must address ourselves to the meaning of "join her husband." We do not think a fine delineation of what the three words mean is necessary. If on March 5, 1952, she was intending to come to the United States, meet her newly acquired, technical at least, husband, Jonathan Yee, (who in February had preceded her back to San Francisco) and to promptly commence living with him as man and wife, then she intended to join her husband. On the other hand, if on March 5, 1952, the state of mind of Helen was that she had married Jonathan as a matter of convenience to get to the United States and had no intention as of that date of ever cohabiting with Jonathan, we do not think an intent to greet Jonathan cordially at the San Francisco airport and to proceed through other open and empty formalities would absolve her.
In this court, we cannot weigh the evidence. Appellant's counsel earnestly argues that the evidence was insufficient. He and Helen can point to facts such as:
1. There was a marriage, regular in form, of Jonathan and Helen in Hong Kong on November 29, 1951.
2. On the night of March 16, 1952, Jonathan signed the register in an Oakland Hotel "Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Yee." And at least Helen immediately occupied the room for which the registration was made. (March 16 was the day Helen arrived in San Francisco from Hong Kong.)
3. On May 31, 1952, Jonathan and Helen went to Reno and again they were participants in a marriage ceremony.
4. In August, 1952, Jonathan and Helen traveled together (with Jonathan's two children born to Jean) to Seattle where they lived together for a substantial portion of one month.5
All of the above is consistent with Helen's innocence in saying on March 5, 1952, that she intended to come to the United States to join her husband.
Intent here must be largely circumstantial, but the prosecutor has some pretty good circumstances.
1. The jury might believe that before Jonathan arrived in Hong Kong in October, 1951, Helen had been in correspondence with William Fong and not at all with Jonathan.
2. The jury might believe that Helen overheard Jonathan talking from Hong Kong to San Francisco to William Fong and Jean Jow Yee before the marriage ceremony. From those conversations, if related to the court truthfully, she may have known (if it could be possible she didn't know before) that she was destined for William Fong — not Jonathan Yee — and that from her he hoped to have a male heir.
3. The jury may have believed that at no time from November 29, 1951, the date of Helen's ceremonial marriage in Hong Kong, to the day in February, 1952, when Jonathan flew back to San Francisco, did Helen cohabit with Jonathan.
4. The jury may have believed that while Jonathan was in Hong Kong he requested money of William Fong in San Francisco and that Fong sent the money to Helen, not Jonathan, and Helen used it.
There were enough events preceding March 5 to find that on that day Helen did not intend to come to the United States to "join my husband, Jonathan Yee" as she swore she intended to do.
And later events reasonably close in time can send inferences backward to the event...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. United States
...L.Ed. 699; Stein v. United States, 9 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 579; Lemon v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 369; Chin Bick Wah v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 274; Goldbaum v. United States, 9 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 74; Winger v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 440; Cohen v. ......
-
Elkins v. United States
...9 Cir., 224 F.2d 742; Paquet v. United States, 9 Cir., 236 F.2d 203; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 222; Chin Bick Wah v. United States, 9 Cir., 245 F.2d 274; Donaldson v. United States, 9 Cir., 248 F.2d 364; Robinson v. United States, 9 Cir., 262 F.2d 645; Stein v. United State......
-
Russell v. United States
...United States, 1920, 252 U.S. 239, 40 S.Ct. 205, 64 L.Ed. 542; Lemon v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 369; Chin Bick Wah v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 274, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 870, 78 S.Ct. 120, 2 L.Ed.2d 76; Roberts v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 467; Wi......
-
Rocha v. United States
...nor was that question raised, in the only case that apparently has arisen in this circuit under § 1546. Chin Bick Wah v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 274, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 870, 78 S.Ct. 120, 2 L.Ed. 2d In Lutwak v. United States, supra, the validity of the marriage was he......