Adinortey E. Puplampu v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Adinortey E. Puplampu v. United States

422 F.2d 870

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1970

Docket22549_1

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 422 F.2d 870 (Adinortey E. Puplampu v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adinortey E. Puplampu v. United States, 422 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI