Slappey v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Slappey v. United States

110 F.2d 528, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 1940

DocketNo. 9327

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 110 F.2d 528 (Slappey v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slappey v. United States, 110 F.2d 528, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587 (5th Cir. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Against the appellant there was the direct and positive testimony of one witness who claimed to be a co-principal in the making, possession and transportation of the distilled liquor, and there were also corroborating circumstances. Such evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.

The extraordinary motion for a new trial was based on newly discovered evidence that prior to the trial the witness above mentioned had made statements in contradiction of his testimony. The District Court had power to grant a new trial for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 391. But as a rule new trials are not granted where the newly discovered evidence is only of an impeaching character. The grant thereof rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and no abuse of discretion appears in his refusal of a new trial in this case. Royal Ins. Co. v. Eastham, 5 Cir., 71 F.2d 385; Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 91 F.2d 884.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Against the appellant there was the direct and positive testimony of one witness who claimed to be a co-principal in the making, possession and transportation of the distilled liquor, and there were also corroborating circumstances. Such evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.

The extraordinary motion for a new trial was based on newly discovered evidence that prior to the trial the witness above mentioned had made statements in contradiction of his testimony. The District Court had power to grant a new trial for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 391. But as a rule new trials are not granted where the newly discovered evidence is only of an impeaching character. The grant thereof rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and no abuse of discretion appears in his refusal of a new trial in this case. Royal Ins. Co. v. Eastham, 5 Cir., 71 F.2d 385; Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 91 F.2d 884.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 F.2d 528, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slappey-v-united-states-ca5-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack