4 Convicted of Abducting Child Seek New Trials

It was heart-warming news when Anh Dao Nguyen, 11, of Santa Ana was found unharmed after a dramatic police raid on an Anaheim home on Sept. 23, 1982, two days after the girl had been kidnaped for ransom.

On Wednesday, attorneys for four people convicted of her abduction appeared before the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana seeking new trials--all raising different arguments.

When they were sentenced three years ago, the four people convicted--Vy Le, Minh Nguyen, Lang Van Nguyen and Lan Rolsen--were all given life sentences for kidnaping for ransom, except Rolsen, the only woman among the four. Rolsen got a five-year sentence after the judge reduced her jury conviction of kidnaping for ransom to simply kidnaping.

A fifth defendant who had been a fugitive until after the trial, Binh Tu Vong, pleaded guilty last year and also got a life sentence.

Overwhelming Evidence

Jurors at the joint trial said the evidence against the four defendants was overwhelming.

The girl and her 7-year-old brother were approached by two men in a van as they walked to school. The girl was abducted, but the boy ran away and managed to escape. Later, the abductors demanded 200 ounces of gold--worth about $88,000 then--for the girl’s return.

Police caught Vy Le and Lang Van Nguyen in a van trying to pick up a ransom from the girl’s mother. They told police where the girl could be found, which turned out to be Rolsen’s Anaheim house. When police got there, Minh Nguyen was guarding the little girl in a bedroom.

A fifth man involved, Ha Son Bui, was granted immunity to testify against his fellow abductors. He testified that Vy Le was the leader of the group and had planned the kidnaping.

Unfair Treatment Argued

However, attorneys for the four defendants all contended Wednesday that their clients had been treated unfairly.

Vy Le’s appellate attorney, Patrick J. Hennessey Jr. of San Diego, argued that the jury had been prejudiced against his client as a result of statements made by the trial attorney for Lang Van Nguyen, who said in his opening statement that Vy Le was connected to the Vietnamese mafia. That statement was never followed up at the trial, Hennessey argued.

Minh Nguyen’s appellate attorney, Robison D. Harley of Newport Beach, argued that his client deserved a lesser conviction, explaining that the man had only chased the little boy, not the girl. The charge that he had been found guarding the girl should have been no more than false imprisonment, not kidnaping for ransom, Harley argued.

Ambivalent Participant

Lang Van Nguyen’s appellate attorney, Franz E. Miller of Santa Ana, argued that his client was an ambivalent participant who had gone along with the others out of fear he would be harmed later if he did not.

However, one of the justices, Thomas F. Crosby, questioned why the defendant would have been there if not as a participant. “What was he doing, writing a book?” Crosby asked. “This wasn’t a spectator sport.”

Rolsen’s appellate attorney, Keith C. Monroe of Santa Ana, argued that Bui should not have been granted immunity because part of the deal he made with the prosecutor was that he had to testify that Rolsen was involved.

Yet Crosby questioned whether Bui was needed to convict Rolsen at all. Crosby pointed out that even though the kidnaped girl was blindfolded, she got a glimpse of a dress the woman in the group was wearing. It was the same dress Rolsen was wearing when she was arrested.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Frederick R. Millar Jr. responded briskly to arguments from all four, contending that they had received a fair trial and that the jurors were well aware of the roles played by each defendant.

The justices, as is their procedure, took the arguments under submission.