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
Connie Wilkins, Jr., Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 228 F.2d 37
Submitted Oct. 4, 1955.Decided Oct. 20, 1955
[97 U.S.App.D.C. 67] Appellant filed a brief pro se.
Mr. Fred L. McIntyre, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and Frederick G. Smithson, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, submitted for appellee.
Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before FAHY, WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of robbery as defined in § 22-2901, D.C.Code 1951. His appeal, however, is not from the judgment entered upon the conviction but from an order of the District Court denying his motion for a new trial grounded upon newly discovered evidence. See Rule 33, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 18 U.S.C.A. Since the motion was filed more than 10 days after entry of the judgment questions breifed which relate to matters other than that raised by the motion are not properly before us. See Rule 37, Fed.R.Crim.P. The allegedly newly discovered evidence bears only upon the credibility of one of the witnesses for the prosecution, and upon consideration of the evidence as a whole we find no abuse of discretion in denial of the motion. See Thompson v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 188 F.2d 652; Murphy v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 118, 198 F.2d 87.
Affirmed.