New trial for couple accused of harboring illegal alien child

The federal court has set a new trial date in the case of a couple who prevailed in their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that reversed their convictions over allegations that they harbored an illegal alien child.

The case against Lili Zhang Tydingco and Francisco Muña Tydingco has been set for trial on April 30.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona set the pre-trial conference for tomorrow,

Wednesday.

Manglona held a hearing last Friday after receiving the order from the Ninth Circuit in connection with the reversal of the couple’s convictions.

The parties in the case requested for a new trial date.

Assistant U.S. attorney Garth Backe appeared for the U.S. government. Benjamin Petersburg served as court-appointed counsel for Lili Zhang Tydingco, while Steven Pixley appeared as court-appointed counsel for Francisco Muña Tydingco.

A federal grand jury indicted the couple for allegedly receiving money to harbor two illegal Chinese aliens, including a child they enrolled at a public school.

In June 2016, a federal court jury rendered a unanimous guilty verdict finding Lili Zhang Tydingco guilty of one count of harboring an alien and Francisco Muña Tydingco guilty of aiding and abetting the harboring.

On Dec. 9, 2016, Manglona sentenced Lili Zhang Tydingco to 10 months in prison, with credit for time served. She sentenced Francisco Muña Tydingco to 21 months in prison, with credit for time served.

The Tydingcos, through Pixley and lawyer Bruce Berline, appealed, asking the Ninth Circuit to reverse their conviction and vacate their sentence.

The couple have remained free while their appeal was pending.

In the order last year that reversed the convictions, the Ninth Circuit judges held that Manglona’s instruction defining “harbor” was erroneous because it did not require the jury to find that the Tydingcos intended to violate the law, and the error was not harmless.

The judges said the District Court’s instruction defining “reckless disregard” was plainly erroneous because it did not require the jury to find that Lili Zhang Tydingco subjectively drew an inference that the alien was, in fact, an alien and was in the United States unlawfully.

The panel held that the instruction may have affected the outcome of the trial, and the error constitutes a miscarriage of justice, warranting a new trial, because the jury could have convicted the couple on an invalid legal theory.

With the reversal of the convictions, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial.