UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WALTER EARL STEPHENSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from a conviction for fraud by wire in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343. We affirm.
The refusal to grant a second continuance at the request of appellant because of the absence of a defense witness was in the discretion of the trial court, and that discretion was not abused. United States v. Pierce, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F. 2d 678. Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence since that evidence, the testimony of the formerly absent witness, was merely cumulative and did not raise a substantial probability that its admission at a new trial would produce a different result. See United States v. Rodriguez, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F. 2d 940; United States v. Hersh, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F. 2d 835; Reno v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 340 F. 2d 307; Ledet v. United States, 5 Cir. 1962, 297 F. 2d 737, 739.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
United States v. Metz, 652 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
United States v. Driver, 466 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Loyal S. Ledet v. United States, 297 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1962)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 437 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Hersh, 415 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Reno v. United States, 340 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Muench v. Beto, 340 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1965)
- United States v. Flavis C. Pierce, 411 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1969)