Connie Wilkins, Jr. v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Connie Wilkins, Jr. v. United States

228 F.2d 37, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 66, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3641

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 1955

Docket12480_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 F.2d 37 (Connie Wilkins, Jr. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connie Wilkins, Jr. v. United States, 228 F.2d 37, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 66, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3641 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

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 briefed 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 briefed 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 F.2d 37, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 66, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connie-wilkins-jr-v-united-states-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack