U.S. v. Lind
| Decision Date | 15 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 245,245 |
| Parties | 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 345 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Pedro LIND, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 76-1213. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Martin Gotkin, New York City, for appellant.
Paul Vizcarrondo, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert B. Fiske, Jr., U. S. Atty. S.D.N.Y.; Frederick T. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before FEINBERG, GURFEIN and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.
On the evening of January 13, 1976, Pedro Lind stopped his car in Paramus, New Jersey, and his friend, Hector Luis Pereira, asked 17-year old Kathleen Lutzen for directions. Pereria then forced Kathleen into the back seat at gunpoint. The car proceeded to the Bronx, where Kathleen was kept captive in an apartment. The two men abused her sexually through the night, and demanded two thousand dollars ransom from her father. He followed instructions to "drop" the money the next day, and the FBI followed Pereira, who picked up the ransom, back to the apartment house. They arrested him as he led Kathleen from the building. They were unable to find Lind at that time, but he surrendered himself at FBI headquarters four days later. Lind now appeals his conviction for kidnapping and related offenses, after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before Charles E. Stewart, Jr., J. 1
Lind first argues that he should have been allowed to cross-examine the kidnap victim regarding her prior involvements with the police, including her juvenile records. During the trial, the judge did allow cross-examination on the facts underlying the victim's past record of hitchhiking. The other incidents that defense counsel sought to examine were either too remote in time or were not relevant to the defense's theory that the victim solicited a ride and cooperated in the kidnapping plan. The judge, therefore, did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination on the victim's police record. See Rule 609(d), Fed. Rules of Evidence; United States v. Green, 523 F.2d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 1975).
Lind also argues that the trial judge should have suppressed his confession and that the evidence was insufficient to link him to the crime. He points to three factors which, he says, indicate that his confession was not voluntary and that he did not knowingly waive any rights: He was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Smith, Civ-1973-349.
...Cir. 1964), the length of the interrogation under review would not appear to be a particularly significant factor. See United States v. Lind, 542 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 947, 97 S.Ct. 1585, 51 L.Ed.2d 796 (1977); United States ex rel. Coleman v. Mancusi, 423 F.2d 985......
-
Smith v. State
...(5th Cir.1976), cert. denied sub nom. Vice v. United States, 431 U.S. 906, 97 S.Ct. 1700, 52 L.Ed.2d 390 (1977); United States v. Lind, 542 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 947, 97 S.Ct. 1585, 51 L.Ed.2d 796 (1977). Hence, we conclude that the trial court's restriction of......
-
Carrion v. Butler
...and translator, could not have acted neutrally is insufficient to establish that he acted coercively . See United States v. Lind , 542 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir. 1976) (rejecting involuntary confession argument where Spanish-speaking FBI agent served as translator).Mr. Carrion also questions De......
-
Smith v. United States
...(5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Vice v. United States, 431 U.S. 906, 97 S.Ct. 1700, 52 L.Ed.2d 390 (1977); United States v. Lind, 542 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 947, 97 S.Ct. 1585, 51 L.Ed.2d 796 (1977). Hence, we conclude that the trial court's restriction ......
-
Witnesses
...explain a prior conviction or defend his credibility after it has been attacked by the use of a prior conviction. United States v. Lind , 542 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 947 (1977). The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing cross-examination of a kidnap victim ......
-
Witnesses
...explain a prior conviction or defend his credibility after it has been attacked by the use of a prior conviction. United States v. Lind , 542 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 947 (1977). The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing cross-examination of a kidnap victim ......
-
Impeachment
...explain a prior conviction or defend his credibility after it has been attacked by the use of a prior conviction. United States v. Lind , 542 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 947 (1977). The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing cross-examination of a kidnap victim ......
-
Witnesses
...explain a prior conviction or defend his credibility after it has been attacked by the use of a prior conviction. United States v. Lind , 542 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 947 (1977). The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing cross-examination of a kidnap victim ......