865 F2d 1271 United States v. Rivera

865 F.2d 1271

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Pedro RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-5324.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 5, 1988.
Decided Jan. 6, 1989.

Before FARRIS, POOLE, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM*

2

Pedro Rivera argues that the jurisdictional prerequisite of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 was not satisfied because (1) Rivera did not know that Silva intended to transport their victim across state lines and (2) the victim was not transported across state lines. We reject the argument. The government introduced sufficient evidence to establish all elements of the alleged crime. Personal knowledge and intent of a co-conspirator is attributable to all co-conspirators. See United States v. Bankston, 603 F.2d 528, 532-33 (5th Cir.1979).

3

Whether physical evidence and expert testimony should have been introduced is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Gilley, 836 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir.1988). We find no abuse of discretion.

4

We understand but reject the allegation of unique circumstances which required the admission of polygraph evidence over the government's objection. Unstipulated polygraph evidence is per se inadmissible. Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389, 1395-97 (9th Cir.1986).

5

Limitation of cross-examination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1313 (9th Cir.1987). The record satisfies us that the jury had sufficient information to apprise the biases and motivations of the witness. See Chipman v. Mercer, 628 F.2d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1980). The trial court did not foreclose all inquiry into bias or credibility. See United States v. Dadanian, 818 F.2d 1443, 1449 (9th Cir.1987).

6

Rivera's contention that the court erred in precluding him from calling Jerry Ross to testify is also without merit. Rivera claims that the proffered testimony "directly impeached" Hanson's testimony and showed motive, opportunity, and intent. Under Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, specific instances of conduct for the purpose of attacking a witness's credibility may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. Thus Ross' testimony was inadmissible to impeach Hanson." Furthermore, contrary to Rivera's assertion, the proffered evidence does not show motive or opportunity. Even if there is a viable argument that the evidence shows intent, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The testimony was properly excluded.

7

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3