Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Saunders, v. United States
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 197 F.2d 685
Argued June 19, 1952.Decided June 19, 1952
John J. Dwyer, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Charles M. Irelan, U.S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Grace B. Stiles, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee. George Morris Fay, U.S. Atty. when the record was filed, Washington, D.C., also entered his appearance on behalf of appellee.
Before CLARK, WILBER K. MILLER and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which denied, after hearing, motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence of an alleged psychiatric condition. the Motion was filed five months after appellant's conviction of assault with intent to commit robbery (D.C. Code (1940) Sec. 22-501) and unauthorized use of automobile (D.C. Code (1940) Sec. 22-2204).
The alleged newly discovered evidence was designed to show that appellant may have been suffering from a psychiatric condition (psychoneurosis associated with emotional instability) at the time of the offenses of which he was convicted. From our examination of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. The facts which appellant advanced as newly discovered evidence were within the knowledge of appellant at the time of his trial, and consideration of the various statements and affidavits leaves us unconvinced that in a new trial acquittal would probably result. See Thompson v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 188 F.2d 752.
Affirmed.