Saunders v. United States, 11101.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 11101.,11101. |
| Citation | 197 F.2d 685,91 US App. DC 90 |
| Parties | SAUNDERS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Grace B. Stiles, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. when the record was filed, Washington, D. C., also entered his appearance on behalf of appellee.
Before CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which denied, after hearing, motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence of an alleged psychiatric condition. The motion was filed five months after appellant's conviction of assault with intent to commit robbery (D.C.Code (1940) § 22-501) and unauthorized use of automobile (D.C.Code (1940) § 22-2204).
The alleged newly discovered evidence was designed to show that appellant may have been suffering from a psychiatric condition (psychoneurosis associated with emotional instability) at the time of the offenses of which he was convicted. From our examination of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. The facts which appellant advanced as newly discovered evidence were within the knowledge of appellant at the time of his trial, and consideration of the various statements and affidavits leaves us unconvinced that in a new trial acquittal would probably result. See Thompson v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 188 F.2d 652.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. United States, 11872.
...was not newly discovered and does not convince us that in a new trial acquittal would probably result. Compare Saunders v. United States, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 197 F. 2d 685. 1 Tatum v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S. App.D.C. 386, 390, 190 F.2d 612, 616. ...
-
Williams v. United States, 1435.
...v. United States, 91 U.S.App. D.C. 146, 198 F.2d 955, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 920, 73 S.Ct. 387, 97 L.Ed. 709; Saunders v. United States, 91 U.S. App.D.C. 90, 197 F.2d 685; Myers v. Halligan, 9 Cir., 244 F. 4. Tatum v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 386, 190 F.2d 612. 5. Appellant was re......
-
Quick v. United States, 7465.
...prior to and during trial and consciously failed to disclose it to his counsel. See in this connection Saunders v. United States, 91 U.S. App.D.C. 90, 197 F.2d 685 (1952); Thompson v. United States, supra at 236 of 88 U.S.App.D.C., 653 of 188 F.2d; Heard v. United States, supra at 126 of 24......
-
Wagstaff v. United States, 11366.
...these circumstances the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hear the proffered testimony. See Saunders v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 197 F.2d 685. The judgment of the District Court will accordingly Affirmed. ...