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
Meyers et al. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 207 F.2d 413
Argued October 6, 1953 Decided October 7, 1953
Harold Buchman, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
George Cochran Doub, U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence in a case in which conviction was affirmed by this court. See Frankfeld v. United States, 4 Cir., 198 F.2d 679. The motion was denied by the court below in an exhaustive opinion which entirely covers the questions involved. United States v. Frankfeld, D.C., 111 F.Supp. 919. The newly discovered evidence is claimed to impeach the credibility of the witnesses Markward and Long; but we agree with the District Judge that it is not of sufficient importance to justify the granting of a new trial. It was shown on the trial that Mrs. Markward was an informer employed and paid by the government. The newly discovered evidence showed merely the amounts that she received and counsel for defense did not consider information as to these amounts of sufficient importance to make specific inquiry about them on the trial, although he had ample opportunity to do so. As to Long, the newly discovered evidence related merely to convictions for drunkenness. We cannot see that the testimony, if it had been introduced on the trial, would have affected the result. Certainly no error of law on the part of the District Judge is shown and we would not be justified in holding that he abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the basis of the testimony. United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 66 S.Ct. 464, 90 L.Ed. 562.
Affirmed.