UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FREDERICK ISIAH GRANGER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Appellant was convicted of transferring and possessing counterfeit money. He sought a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence after his…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Granger challenges the District Court’s denial of a motion for a new trial after a conviction for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472, 473, transfer and possession of counterfeit money. We affirm.
The conviction of appellant was affirmed by this court. 475 F. 2d 1022 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 412 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 2757, 37 L.Ed.2d 157 (1973). A new trial is sought because of the presence of “newly discovered” evidence. A full hearing was held by the trial court on appellant’s motion.
It is well settled that the scope of review of a denial of a motion for a new trial is narrow and reversal will be ordered only when it is clear that the District Court abused its discretion. United States v. Craft, 421 F. 2d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1970); Pitts v. United States, 263 F. 2d 808, 810-811 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 360 U.S. 919, 79 S.Ct. 1438, 3 L.Ed.2d 1535 (1959).
A review of the record clearly discloses that the evidence relied upon by the appellant was not newly discovered and unknown to the defendant at the time of trial. Nor would the evidence probably have produced an acquittal. United States v. Cativiela, 460 F. 2d 192 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam).
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Street, 570 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Harris, 534 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Pitts v. United States, 263 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1959)
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Otte in Bankruptcy, 412 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1973)
- Burroughs v. United States, 412 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1973)
- Fogarty v. United States, 360 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1959)
- Bryson v. United States, 360 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1959)
- United States v. Craft, 421 F.2d 693 (9th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Granger, 475 F.2d 1022 (9th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Grayce Marie Cativiela, 460 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1972)