James Walter Meadows v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James Walter Meadows v. United States

339 F.2d 206

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 7, 1964·No. 21130_1·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s sole contention is that the trial judge erred in denying his mid-trial motion for a continuance. The critical facts are that the motion does not comply with F.R.Civ.P. 17(b); the purpose of the motion was to offer testimony impeaching a Government witness on an immaterial point; and, during the trial, the appellant offered no testimony. We hold that the trial court was well within sound judicial discretion in denying the motion. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s sole contention is that the trial judge erred in denying his mid-trial motion for a continuance. The critical facts are that the motion does not comply with F.R.Civ.P. 17(b); the purpose of the motion was to offer testimony impeaching a Government witness on an immaterial point; and, during the trial, the appellant offered no testimony. We hold that the trial court was well within sound judicial discretion in denying the motion. The judgment is affirmed.

James Walter Meadows v. United States, 339 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

339 F.2d 206 (James Walter Meadows v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related