Murphy v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Murphy v. United States

198 F.2d 87, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 118, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3148

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 1952

Docket11321_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 198 F.2d 87 (Murphy 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

Murphy v. United States, 198 F.2d 87, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 118, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3148 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of obstructing justice, D.'C.Code 1940, § 22-703, and was sentenced to prison. Several months afterward, he filed a motion for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, which was denied after hearing.

The alleged newly discovered evidence was asserted to be a Juvenile Court record of a prosecution witness and was to be presented for purposes of impeaching that witness. As this court has said in Thompson v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 188 F.2d 652, to obtain a new trial because of newly discovered evidence, the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching. We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. 1 We intimate no view upon whether the Juvenile Court record would have been admissible under other circumstances.

Affirmed.

1

. Counsel on appeal was not counsel in the District Court.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of obstructing justice, D.'C.Code 1940, § 22-703, and was sentenced to prison. Several months afterward, he filed a motion for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, which was denied after hearing.

The alleged newly discovered evidence was asserted to be a Juvenile Court record of a prosecution witness and was to be presented for purposes of impeaching that witness. As this court has said in Thompson v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 188 F.2d 652, to obtain a new trial because of newly discovered evidence, the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching. We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. 1 We intimate no view upon whether the Juvenile Court record would have been admissible under other circumstances.

Affirmed.

1

. Counsel on appeal was not counsel in the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F.2d 87, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 118, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-united-states-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack