CLARENCE DAYTON HILLMAN, PETITIONER,

v.

THE UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Ewing v. United States, 135 F.2d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1942)
  …well case is distinguishable from this one, in respect to the necessity and sufficiency of corroboration, because the prosecutrix in that case was under the age of consent. Hillman v. United States, 9 Cir. 1911, 192 F. 264, 272, cert. denied, 1912, 225 U.S. 699, 32 S.Ct 834, 56 L.Ed. 1263; Chetkovitch v. United States, 9 Cir. 1931, 53 F. 2d 26. 3 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed. 1940) § 1003, and authorities cited in note 3; Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Warren, 1912, 38 App.D.C. 310, 315; cf. Martin v. United States…
• United States v. Hoffa, 382 F.2d 856 (6th Cir. 1967)
  …(CA 6, 1958); United States v. Troche, 213 F. 2d 401 (CA 2, 1954); Ewing v. United States, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 135 F. 2d 633 (1942), cert. den. 318 U.S. 776, 63 S.Ct. 829, 87 L.Ed. 1145; Hillman v. United States, 192 F. 264 (CA 9, 1911), cert. den. 225 U.S. 699, 32 S.Ct. 834, 56 L.Ed. 1263; United States v. Crowder, 351 F. 2d 101 (CA 6, 1965), are not apposite in the context of this case. In the main, they are decisions where the newly discovered evidence consisted of post-trial declarations by individuals…
• United States v. Kearney, 682 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
  …on). A motion for new trial may be decided on the basis of affidavits without an evidentiary hearing. Ewing v. United States, 135 F. 2d 633, 638 (D.C.Cir.1942) (Rutledge, J.); Hillman v. United States, 192 F. 264, 272 (9th Cir. 1911), cert. denied, 225 U.S. 699, 32 S.Ct. 834, 56 L.Ed. 1263 (1912); Chetkovitch v. United States, 53 F. 2d 26 (9th Cir. 1931); Gordon v. United States, 178 F. 2d 896 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 935, 70 S.Ct. 664, 94 L.Ed. 1353; United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 112,…