On the morning of November 20, 2003, Mao-Sheng Lin and two accomplices walked into Tao Lin's kitchen and demanded payment of an alleged $150,000 debt.
Armed with a knife and gun, Mao tied up Tao, Tao's wife, and two restaurant workers and demanded Tao escort him to a bank where Tao was expected to withdraw the monies. Luckily, Tao's wife escaped and summoned help.
After the Tompkins County Court convicted Mao of kidnapping in the first degree, two counts of burglary in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm, he appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department.
While Mao argued he couldn't be found guilty of kidnapping because it overlapped with his other crimes, the AD3 viewed the restraint of Tao's wife at gunpoint as a "discrete crime." The appellate court also didn't agree court interpreters were "incompetent" or any translation errors were prejudicial. Nor was it receptive to the argument that Mao's newly retained attorney had been wrongfully denied an adjournment to prepare for trial or that the trial judge was biased.
Clearly, the AD3 didn't want to get tied up in quotations from this Mao .
(Or did he just hit a great wall?)
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Mao-Sheng Lin