United States v. Walter Earl Stephenson

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Walter Earl Stephenson

448 F.2d 768

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 28, 1971

Docket71-1438_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 448 F.2d 768 (United States v. Walter Earl Stephenson) 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

United States v. Walter Earl Stephenson, 448 F.2d 768 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a conviction for fraud by wire in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343. We affirm.

The refusal to grant a second continuance at the request of appellant because of the absence of a defense witness was in the discretion of the trial court, and that discretion was not abused. United States v. Pierce, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 678. Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence since that evidence, the testimony of the formerly absent witness, was merely cumulative and did not raise a substantial probability that its admission at a new trial would produce a different result. See United States v. Rodriguez, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 940; United States v. Hersh, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 835; Reno v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 340 F.2d 307; Ledet v. United States, 5 Cir. 1962, 297 F.2d 737, 739.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a conviction for fraud by wire in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343. We affirm.

The refusal to grant a second continuance at the request of appellant because of the absence of a defense witness was in the discretion of the trial court, and that discretion was not abused. United States v. Pierce, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 678. Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence since that evidence, the testimony of the formerly absent witness, was merely cumulative and did not raise a substantial probability that its admission at a new trial would produce a different result. See United States v. Rodriguez, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 940; United States v. Hersh, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 835; Reno v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 340 F.2d 307; Ledet v. United States, 5 Cir. 1962, 297 F.2d 737, 739.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 F.2d 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-walter-earl-stephenson-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack