Saunders v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Saunders v. United States

197 F.2d 685, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 90, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2673

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 1952

Docket11101

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 197 F.2d 685 (Saunders 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

Saunders v. United States, 197 F.2d 685, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 90, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2673 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which denied, after hearing, motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence of an alleged psychiatric condition. The motion was filed five months after appellant’s conviction of assault with intent to commit robbery (D.C.Code (1940) § 22-501) and unauthorized use of automobile (D.GCode (1940) § 22-2204).

The alleged newly discovered evidence was designed to show that appellant may have been suffering from a psychiatric condition (psychoneurosis associated with emotional instability) at the time of the offenses of which he was convicted. From our examination of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. The facts which appellant advanced as newly discovered evidence were within the knowledge of appellant at the time of his trial, and consideration of the various statements and affidavits leaves us unconvinced that in a new trial acquittal would probably result. See Thompson v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 188 F.2d 652.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which denied, after hearing, motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence of an alleged psychiatric condition. The motion was filed five months after appellant’s conviction of assault with intent to commit robbery (D.C.Code (1940) § 22-501) and unauthorized use of automobile (D.GCode (1940) § 22-2204).

The alleged newly discovered evidence was designed to show that appellant may have been suffering from a psychiatric condition (psychoneurosis associated with emotional instability) at the time of the offenses of which he was convicted. From our examination of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. The facts which appellant advanced as newly discovered evidence were within the knowledge of appellant at the time of his trial, and consideration of the various statements and affidavits leaves us unconvinced that in a new trial acquittal would probably result. See Thompson v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 188 F.2d 652.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F.2d 685, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 90, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-united-states-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack