From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fallen v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 10, 1957
249 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1957)

Opinion

No. 16853.

November 13, 1957. Rehearing Denied December 10, 1957.

Mark Dunahoo, Winder, Ga., for appellant.

William C. Calhoun, U.S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., Donald H. Fraser, Asst. U.S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for appellee.

Before RIVES, TUTTLE and BROWN, Circuit Judges.


Appellant's original conviction was affirmed by this Court in Fallen v. United States, 220 F.2d 946. In that opinion also, we found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the appellant's motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The present appeal is from a denial of another such motion. The district court found that the alleged newly discovered evidence was cumulative and impeaching in character.

The denial of such a motion for new trial is appealable, Harrison v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 874, 876; Balestreri v. United States, 9 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 915, 916. A careful examination of the record, including the affidavits setting forth the alleged newly discovered evidence, convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See same authorities. No useful purpose would be served by setting out the substance of the affidavits and their relation to the evidence upon which appellant was convicted.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Fallen v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 10, 1957
249 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1957)
Case details for

Fallen v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Curtis FALLEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 10, 1957

Citations

249 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1957)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Lopez-Escobar

Lopez-Escobar did not refer to the underlying judgment in his notice of appeal. An order denying a motion for…

Government Financial Services v. Peyton Place

We have held that the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered, evidence is…