JUNIOR AMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A new trial should have been granted because a disinterested witness with vital evidence became available, and the only similar evidence at trial was the defendant's own testimony.
The defendant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon. He sought a new trial based on an affidavit from a witness who could testify that the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cumulative Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
Amos was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon. He appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The defendant cut the complaining witness Smith. The motion for a new trial was supported, among other things, by an affidavit of one Bordeaux, who was not a witness at the trial, that just before the cutting Smith had threatened the defendant with a knife. At the trial there was no testimony, except that of the defendant himself, to this effect.
The defendant and his trial counsel, who was not his present counsel, tried to produce Bordeaux at the trial. They did not know how Bordeaux spelled his name. A subpoena was issued in the name of Bordoe and was sent to the District of Columbia Workhouse at Oc-coquan, where Bordeaux was a prisoner. Reasonable diligence of Occoquan personnel should have produced Bordeaux in response to this subpoena. It was no fault of the defendant or his counsel that Bordeaux was not available at the trial.
We think a new trial should have been granted. We have held that newly discovered evidence which is merely cumulative does not require a new trial. Thompson v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 188 F. 2d 652. But that principle should not be applied where, as here, a disinterested witness becomes available who can supply evidence of vital importance and the only similar evidence at the trial was that of the defendant himself.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Alper, 449 F.2d 1223 (3d Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Garland, 991 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1993)
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. United States, 188 F.2d 652 (D.C. Cir. 1951)