U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

Adinortey E. Puplampu v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 24, 1970 · Browning, Hufstedler, Per Curiam, Thompson

422 F.2d 870 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Scipio Porter (argued), Oakland, Cal., for appellant., John W. Hornbeck (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Arnold G. Regardie, Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Attys., Wm. M. Byrne, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Antonio Rodriguez-Preciado, AKA Tony Rodriguez-Preciado (9th Cir. 2005)
United States v. Rodriguez-Preciado (9th Cir. 2005)
United States v. Rodriguez-Preciado (9th Cir. 2005)
State v. DeWeese (W. Va. 2003)
State of Washington v. Ira Leo Frank (Wash. Ct. App. 2021)
State of Washington v. Eulogio Castro Romero (Wash. Ct. App. 2014)
Roberts v. Cohen (9th Cir. 2004)
United States v. White (6th Cir. 2003)
United States v. Malloy (9th Cir. 2002)
Koger v. State (Nev. 2001)
McClain v. Hill (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1999)
PEOPLE of the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward R.C. DELA PENA, Defendant-Appellant (9th Cir. 1995)
State v. Harvill (La. 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.