United States v. Emil Schoepflin

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Emil Schoepflin

442 F.2d 407, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10421

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 1971

Docket26060_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 442 F.2d 407 (United States v. Emil Schoepflin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Emil Schoepflin, 442 F.2d 407, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10421 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from the District Court’s order denying appellant’s motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Appellant, in 1965, was convicted of bank robbery and his conviction was affirmed. Schoepflin v. United States, 391 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1968). He claims to have discovered the “true robber” among the inmates of Leavenworth Penitentiary and to have three witnesses to swear the “true robber” had confessed. The District Court granted a hearing upon appellant’s motion and the alleged true robber, one Nix, was produced as witness. The court’s denial of appellant’s motion was based on its rejection of Nix’s testimony as unworthy of belief. Its refusal to subpoena the three witnesses to Nix’s confession was upon the ground that anything Nix had said to them would be equally unworthy of belief.

We find neither error nor abuse of discretion. Lindsey v. United States, 368 F.2d 633 (9th Cir. 1966).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from the District Court’s order denying appellant’s motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Appellant, in 1965, was convicted of bank robbery and his conviction was affirmed. Schoepflin v. United States, 391 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1968). He claims to have discovered the “true robber” among the inmates of Leavenworth Penitentiary and to have three witnesses to swear the “true robber” had confessed. The District Court granted a hearing upon appellant’s motion and the alleged true robber, one Nix, was produced as witness. The court’s denial of appellant’s motion was based on its rejection of Nix’s testimony as unworthy of belief. Its refusal to subpoena the three witnesses to Nix’s confession was upon the ground that anything Nix had said to them would be equally unworthy of belief.

We find neither error nor abuse of discretion. Lindsey v. United States, 368 F.2d 633 (9th Cir. 1966).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F.2d 407, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-emil-schoepflin-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack