Levinson v. United States

Decision Date07 May 1929
Citation32 F.2d 449
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Before DENISON, MOORMAN, and HICKS, Circuit Judges.


Levinson was convicted on February 24, and on February 25 was sentenced to the penitentiary. He claimed an appeal, the appeal was allowed, the amount of the supersedeas bond fixed, he gave the bond, and it was approved by the court. His counsel claim that later, on that day and during the next day, they first learned of two causes of complaint: One, that a deputy marshal, not in charge of the jury, improperly associated with them before or after the case was submitted to the jury, or at both times; the other, that the Assistant Attorney General, in charge of the prosecution, had improperly influenced or intimidated a witness during the trial. Levinson promptly made a motion for a new trial, based upon various allegations of error during the trial and upon these two additional grounds. After consideration, the trial court refused to hear this motion, and did so for the reason that it had lost jurisdiction for any such purpose by the perfecting of the appeal to this court. Levinson now applies to us to remand the case, so that his motion for a new trial can be heard. We have no doubt of the power of this court, after it has jurisdiction by reason of a perfected appeal, to permit the court below to hear a motion for a new trial, nor of the propriety of granting such permission when it is made to appear to us that the right to present the matter in due course to the trial court was lost without serious fault on the part of appellant, and that the grounds of complaint may be substantially meritorious, or affect a public interest. This permission may be granted, we think, by way of a remand of the whole case, or by permitting the court below to hear the motion while we still retain jurisdiction generally of the appeal — in which latter case there may or may not be a suspension of the appeal — all as the circumstances may require. Angle v. U. S. (C. C. A. 4) 162 F. 264, 266. In this case, misconduct of officers of the court is alleged. Upon the hearing of this application to us, these allegations are categorically and emphatically denied; but we think that such allegations affect a public interest and should be heard on their merits, if the situation of the case in any way permits, rather than that a hearing should be denied for procedural reasons.

The allowance of the appeal had deprived the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. West, Cr. No. 22230.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • February 4, 1959
    ...such a motion could only be entertained by the District Court after the remand of the case from the Court of Appeals. Levinson v. United States, 6 Cir., 1929, 32 F.2d 449; Hamel v. United States, 6 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d The substantial question is whether this necessity for remand has been p......
  • Metcalf v. United States, 11446.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 24, 1952
    ...a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Rule 33, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.; Levinson v. United States, 6 Cir., 32 F.2d 449. We are not advised that such a motion has been made in the District Court, but under the ruling of this Court in Hamel v. U......
  • State v. Fuentes
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • August 12, 1959
    ...162 F. 264; Martin v. United States. 5 Cir., 17 F.2d 973, certiorari denied 275 U.S. 527, 48 S.Ct. 20, 72 L.Ed. 408; Levinson v. United States, 6 Cir., 32 F.2d 449, setting forth procedure in federal Concerning the argument that it would be dangerous to approve a rule which would permit con......
  • United States v. Smith, 15507.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • May 1, 1964
    ...72 S. Ct. 770, 96 L.Ed. 1342; Paddock v. United States, 302 F.2d 514, C.A.9; Metcalf v. United States, 195 F.2d 213, C.A.6; Levinson v. United States, 32 F.2d 449, C.A.6; Hamel v. United States, 135 F.2d 969, ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT