From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Slappey v. United States

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 19, 1940
110 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1940)

Opinion

No. 9327.

March 19, 1940.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Georgia; Bascom S. Deaver, Judge.

Louis Slappey was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Jos. O. McGehee, of Columbus, Ga., for appellant.

T. Hoyt Davis, U.S. Atty., and H.G. Rawls, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Macon, Ga., for appellee.

Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.


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.


Summaries of

Slappey v. United States

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 19, 1940
110 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1940)
Case details for

Slappey v. United States

Case Details

Full title:SLAPPEY v. UNITED STATES

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Mar 19, 1940

Citations

110 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1940)

Citing Cases

United States v. Kretske

Appellant contends that the newly discovered evidence would affect the credibility of Lafitte. But new trials…

F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Seckinger

It is well settled that motions for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence must do more than…