Ziang Sun Wan v. United States

• Citation: 289 F. 908
• Decision Date: 07 May 1923
• Docket Number: 3807.
• Parties: ZIANG SUN WAN v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

289 F. 908

ZIANG SUN WAN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3807.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

May 7, 1923

Submitted April 3, 1923.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

James A, O'Shea, Charles Fahy, and John I. Sacks, all of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Peyton Gordon and J. H. Bilbrey, both of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate justices.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant Ziang Sun Wan, appeals from a verdict and judgment in which he was found guilty of murder in the first degree and adjudged to pay the death penalty.

It appears that about January 22, 1919, defendant Wan came from New York to Washington and stopped at the Chinese Educational Mission, which at that time was conducted by Dr. Thomas T Wong, director, C. H. Hsie, secretary-treasurer, and Ben Sen Wu, secretary and clerk. Defendant remained at the Mission located at 2023 Kalorama Road, this city, until January 27th when he procured a room at the Harris Hotel. On the same day he telegraphed his brother Van in New York City to come to Washington. On the next day he sent a second telegram to his brother urging him to come immediately. On the following day the brother arrived and was seen at the Harris Hotel between 9 and 10 o'clock a.m. On the evening of January 29th Kang Li, a student under the supervision of the Mission, called at the Mission, and defendant came to the door. He inquired whether Mr. Wu or Dr. Wong were at home. Defendant replied that they had gone out and that he was going out later. About midnight Wan and his brother Van were seen together at the Harris Hotel.

The testimony on behalf of the government shows that on the following morning, January 30th, defendant and his brother engaged a taxicab near the Union Station and drove to the Riggs National Bank, where Wan remained in the cab, while Van entered the bank and presented for payment a check in the sum of $5,000, purporting to be signed by C. H. Hsie and Dr. Wong, and drawn upon the account of the Chinese Educational Mission. The bank, after some investigation and at the suggestion of the brother, telephoned the Mission, but received no reply. The bank then refused to cash the check without further identification, and defendant and his brother returned to the Union Station, where the brother paid for the use of the taxicab. About noon of the same day defendant checked out at the Harris Hotel, and about 5 o'clock in the evening the brother was seen near his lodging place in New York, and defendant was seen at a Chinese cafe in that city at 7:45 p.m. of the same day.

It further appears that Dr. Wong and Hsie were last seen alive between 10 and 11 o'clock on the night of January 29th. On January 30th a letter carrier made three attempts to deliver mail at the Mission but no one responded. On the evening of January 31st, the Chinese legation caused the Mission to be entered by Kang Li, who found the body of Dr. Wong in the reception hall with two gunshot wounds in his chest, one of which had entered the heart, and the bodies of Wu and Hsie were found in the basement, one having gunshot wounds in the chest and the other a gunshot wound in the head. A .32-caliber revolver was found on a chair in the basement.

On February 1st, defendant was arrested in New York, and, together with his brother Van, brought to this city. Defendant gave conflicting accounts as to his whereabouts after leaving the Mission on January 27th. He first said that he had left Washington on that date, but when confronted by Kang Li, who saw him at the Mission on the evening of January 29th, he then said that he left Washington on the 29th. When questioned, he insisted that he had taken dinner with Hsie and Wong on the evening of January 29th, and that Wong had gone with him to the Union Station, where he took a train leaving for New York. When his attention was called to the fact that Wong had dined on the 29th with a Mr. Jeffers, defendant admitted that Wong did not dine with him, but insisted that he did go with him to the station.

Defendant was held in custody at a hotel until February 8th, when, at his request, he was taken by the officers to the Mission. He was there confronted with photostat copies of his own handwriting, and also a photostat copy of a check stub, from the check book of the Chinese Educational Mission, upon which was written 'T. T. Wong, $5,000.' When confronted with the copies of his own writing and the check stub, he finally admitted that he had written the check.

From the Mission house the defendant was taken to the police station and there charged with murder. On the following day the defendant told the officers that he saw the three Chinamen killed and that a Chinaman named Chen had killed them. When urged for an account in detail, he answered that he was tired, but would tell them about it the next day. The following day he again requested to be taken to the Mission, and when they arrived there he began to explain in detail how Chen had killed the three men, but, on being told by an officer that he knew that Chen had not committed the murder, defendant then said in effect that he and Wu were engaged in forging the $5,000 check, when Wong and Hsie came into the house; that Wu, having procured the revolver, killed Wong and Hsie, and that he (defendant) a short time after shot Wu. On the following day, February 11th, defendant made a detailed statement to an officer, which was taken down stenographically, transcribed, and on February 12th signed by the defendant.

It will be observed that the greatest deliberation and consideration was displayed by the officers toward defendant when he first suggested at the police station, on Sunday evening, following the first visit to the Mission house, that he witnessed the murder. When pressed for details, he 'said he was tired; wanted to go to sleep; would talk no more to-night. ' They left him to consider the matter until the next morning, when they again visited him in the police station, and at his request he was taken to the Mission, where he began to detail the killing, charging Chen with the killing of Wu. At this point one of the officers said:

'Wan, you know how this happened. You put a man by the name of Chen in it. I know there was no Chen. You are the man that you are placing here in the story as Chen.'

After hesitating a minute, defendant said:

'Yes; I will tell you the whole truth. Chen was not in it.'

After detailing the killing, as already outlined, he was taken back to the police station, and not until the next day was he questioned for the purpose of procuring a stenographic report, and not until the following day was he presented with the extended report for his signature. Through all this period he had an opportunity to deliberate upon the effect the making of the confession would have upon his case. It also appears, from the signed confession, that before making the statement he was cautioned by the officer as follows:

'We would like for you to make a statement. Your statement must be voluntary, and if you make it I want to tell you it will be used against you in court. You do not have to make a statement unless you want to. I just want to inform you of your rights in the matter.'

The defense offered as a witness defendant's brother Van, who testified that on January 30th he and defendant went to the Union Station, where they met two Chinamen, T. P. Wong and Moy, whom Van had met the day before; that Wong told Van that he had a check which he wanted cashed; that he did not speak English very well, and that he wanted Van to help him cash the check. He testified that it was Wong, and not Van, who went with him to the Riggs Bank and remained in the taxicab while he was in the bank attempting to have the check cashed, which he alleges Wong had given him.

The defendant took the stand on his own behalf and denied all connection with the murder, corroborated his brother to the effect that it was Wong, and not he, who went with Van to the bank; denied that he admitted that the signature on the check stub was his, and accounted for the signed confession on the theory that the officers had importuned him to confess, threatened him, and used abusive language toward him. He testified in substance that when he signed the confession he knew what he was doing, but that he signed it because he was sick and wished to be left alone.

The testimony of defendant was in the nature of a general denial of the evidence given by the officers and witnesses on behalf of the government, especially as to defendant's alleged treatment by the officers, which he claims induced him to confess. This, however, presented a well-defined issue of fact as to whether or not the confession was voluntarily made, and, like all other issues of fact, was one for the consideration of the jury. The issue of the voluntary or involuntary character of the confession was submitted to the jury in a very full and complete charge, in part as follows:

'The test of the case, and the inquiry that you will have to make in answer, is: Did the questioning, did the physical condition, did the importunate questioning, if you choose to call it so, render the confession made by this defendant not his own; but did it substitute for his will the will of another, and thus was it or not his voluntary act? It is impossible to define the limit to which an officer may or should go in detecting or attempting to detect crime. On the one side, he has his duty to the public, to us, always. On the other hand, he must not infringe upon the rights of the citizen, no matter who he may be. He must leave the confession in such a

...