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
Walter J. Blackburn, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 228 F.2d 33
Argued October 3, 1955 Decided October 20, 1955 Petition for Rehearing Denied November 30, 1955
Mr. David G. Bress, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant.
Mr. Gerard J. O'Brien, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll and Harold H. Titus, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial upon alleged newly discovered evidence. Appellant was indicted with another man for housebreaking and larceny. His co-defendant pleaded guilty. Upon appellant's trial two other men appeared as witnesses for the Government. The motion for a new trial is based upon a recantation by one of these witnesses and a supporting affidavit by the co-defendant, who did not testify at the trial. The District Court held a hearing on the motion and heard the testimony of the recanting witness and of the co-defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial judge stated that he did not believe the testimony. Upon that basis he overruled the motion.
A motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Where, as here, that court listens to the testimony, observes the witnesses, and concludes that the testimony is not worthy of belief, its exercise of its discretion, unless abused, will not be disturbed by this court.
The order of the District Court is
Affirmed.