United States v. Bradwell
Citation | 295 F. Supp. 958 |
Decision Date | 21 November 1968 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 11675. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Robert BRADWELL. |
J. Daniel Sagarin, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., for the United States.
Gerald F. Stevens, Milford, Conn., for defendant Bradwell.
This is a motion by defendant Robert Bradwell for a new trial. Defendant was convicted on one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1503 in that he endeavored to intimidate a grand jury witness, thereby obstructing the due administration of justice. Trial of the action commenced May 11, 1966 and ended May 13, 1966.
The instant motion was filed November 2, 1968, renewing an earlier motion filed January 25, 1968, which the Court had denied for lack of jurisdiction during the pendency of appellate proceedings. The denial, however, was without prejudice to renewal within 20 days after receipt by the Court of the appellate mandate. Numerous grounds were offered in support of the original motion, and the Court will construe the instant motion as incorporating them. In general, the contention of defendant is that newly discovered evidence merits granting the motion.
This Court, in ruling on a similar motion, has observed that 1
The newly discovered evidence which defendant asserts justifies the granting of a new trial is offered to the Court in the form of three affidavits, a letter, and a statement of defendant, which, assuming their truth would establish the following:
On the present state of the record, the Court not having held a hearing to determine the credibility of the individuals whose written affidavits and statements have been submitted, the Court must make an initial determination whether Bradwell is entitled to a hearing at which more fully to present this "new" evidence. The alleged statement by McElroy to Bradwell's daughter, evidence that goes to the question of Marie Erwin's presence or absence at the time and place of the alleged offense, and the existence of a mirror in the news-stand are insufficient to justify the holding of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Persico
...J.), aff'd, 438 F.2d 536 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 995, 91 S.Ct. 2172, 29 L.Ed.2d 161 (1971); United States v. Bradwell, 295 F.Supp. 958 (D. Conn.1968) (Timbers, J.), aff'd, 388 F. 2d 619 (2d Cir.); United States v. Miller, 277 F.Supp. 200 (D.Conn.1967), modified in part, 411 F.2d 8......
-
Butler v. United States
...v. On Lee, 201 F.2d 722, 723 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 936, 73 S.Ct. 798. 97 L.Ed. 1364 (1953). See also United States v. Bradwell, 295 F.Supp. 958, 959-960 (D.Conn.1968), aff'd, 388 F.2d 619 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 867, 89 S.Ct. 152, 21 L.Ed.2d 135 (1968); United States v. ......
-
Tropiano v. United States
...an acquittal." United States v. On Lee, 201 F.2d 722, 723 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 936 (1953). See also United States v. Bradwell, 295 F.Supp. 958, 959-60 (D.Conn. 1968), aff'd, 388 F.2d 619 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 867 (1968); United States v. Capaldo, 276 F.Supp. 986, 987 ......
-
United States v. Pellegrino
...of due diligence on the part of appellants since they had ample contact with the affiant prior to trial. See United States v. Bradwell, 295 F.Supp. 958, 959-960 (D.Conn.) aff'd, 388 F.2d 619 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 867, 89 S.Ct. 152, 21 L.Ed.2d 135 (1968). The other affidavit, whi......