Robert Eugene Weed v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Robert Eugene Weed v. United States

380 F.2d 914, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5551

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 1967

Docket9229

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 380 F.2d 914 (Robert Eugene Weed v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Eugene Weed v. United States, 380 F.2d 914, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5551 (10th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of Kansas denying appellant’s motion for new trial made pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P. Appellant had been convicted of a Dyer Act offense, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal to this court. Weed v. United States, 10 Cir., 340 F.2d 827. Appellant’s motion was premised upon the affidavit of one Ballard, a co-defendant, to the effect that he, Ballard, had falsely testified as a prosecution witness at appellant’s trial. The trial court, in full recognition of the importance of Ballard’s original testimony as a contributing factor to appellant’s conviction and the requirements to serve “the interest of justice” under Rule 33, Ledet v. United States, 5 Cir., 297 F.2d 737, conducted a full evidentiary hearing. Ballard, presently serving a California state sentence for armed robbery, appeared and testified pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.

Our appellate review is limited to a consideration of whether the trial court plainly abused his discretion in determining that Ballard’s testimony at trial was credible and that his recantation was not. Casias v. United States, 10 Cir., 350 F.2d 317. We find nothing in the record that would indicate in any way such an abuse of discretion. The judgment is accordingly

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of Kansas denying appellant’s motion for new trial made pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P. Appellant had been convicted of a Dyer Act offense, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal to this court. Weed v. United States, 10 Cir., 340 F.2d 827. Appellant’s motion was premised upon the affidavit of one Ballard, a co-defendant, to the effect that he, Ballard, had falsely testified as a prosecution witness at appellant’s trial. The trial court, in full recognition of the importance of Ballard’s original testimony as a contributing factor to appellant’s conviction and the requirements to serve “the interest of justice” under Rule 33, Ledet v. United States, 5 Cir., 297 F.2d 737, conducted a full evidentiary hearing. Ballard, presently serving a California state sentence for armed robbery, appeared and testified pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.

Our appellate review is limited to a consideration of whether the trial court plainly abused his discretion in determining that Ballard’s testimony at trial was credible and that his recantation was not. Casias v. United States, 10 Cir., 350 F.2d 317. We find nothing in the record that would indicate in any way such an abuse of discretion. The judgment is accordingly

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 F.2d 914, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-eugene-weed-v-united-states-ca10-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack