United States v. Hon

904 F.2d 803 (1990)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Hon

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
904 F.2d 803 (1990)

  • Written by Arlyn Katen, JD

Facts

In 1988, undercover agents from the United States Customs Service purchased eight counterfeit watches from Nam Ping Hon (defendant) and his wife, Sandy Hon. Seven months after the first purchase, agents arranged a larger purchase of 1,200 counterfeit watches. Agents arrested the Hons and seized two shopping bags containing 889 counterfeit watches from the trunk of the Hons’ car. Sandy pleaded guilty, and a federal jury convicted Nam of trafficking and attempting to traffic in counterfeit wrist watches. Agent Bonnie Goldblatt testified that after she and her partner purchased the initial eight watches, Goldblatt placed the watches in a sealed and labelled evidence bag that she stored in a locked cabinet in her office until she gave the watches to Special Agent Blaise Piazza. Although Goldblatt wrote an incorrect case number on the bag, Goldblatt could identify the eight watches admitted at trial as the watches she handled. Piazza testified that he kept the bag of eight watches in his unlocked desk and left the bag unsealed after breaking the seal to examine the watches. Another agent testified that the agent and his partner handed the two bags of 889 watches to Piazza. Piazza testified that he stored the 889 watches in his supervisor’s locked office and then in two separate locked evidence rooms before bringing them to the United States Attorney’s office for trial preparation. Piazza did not seal this evidence but testified that he found the evidence in the same position when he moved it from room to room. Nam appealed from his conviction, arguing in relevant part that the prosecution (plaintiff) had failed to provide a proper chain of custody for the counterfeit watches.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Walker, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership