ADINORTEY E. PUPLAMPU, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1970-02-16
No. 22549
Before BROWNING and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
422 F.2d 870 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1970)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements, restricting cross-examination, or in a prosecutorial misstatement of evidence.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He moved to suppress statements made to a government agent, arguing they were involuntary and m…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

On his appeal from his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2312, appellant contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements that he had made to a Government agent on May 3, 1967, and in restricting cross-examination related to the voluntariness of those statements and that he suffered prejudice from a prosecutorial misstatement of the evidence to the jury.

The district court found that appellant was not in custody on May 3, 1967, that appellant had been fully advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda, two days earlier, and that appellant’s statements were voluntary. The evidence was ample to sustain the district court’s findings. There was no error in admitting appellant’s statements. (Cf. Lowe v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 407 F. 2d 1391; Maguire v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 396 F. 2d 327.)

The district court did not unduly restrict cross-examination. The prosecutor’s lapse was not plain error. The judgment is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw