RATNER

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

• United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)
  …davit and resubmit it. But the cases we have found all say otherwise, and we believe that they are right. United States v. Anderson, 433 F. 2d 856, 859 (8th Cir.1970) (dictum); United States v. Hoffa, 382 F. 2d 856, 861 (6th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 924, 88 S.Ct. 854, 19 L.Ed.2d 984 (1968); United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 539 F.Supp. 473, 477 (S.D.N.Y.1982). Balistrieri contends that the one-affidavit rule logically cannot apply where new facts demonstrating bias have come…
• United States v. Barlow, 693 F.2d 954 (6th Cir. 1982)
  …the sound discretion of the trial judge whose decision is not to be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. United States v. Metz, 652 F. 2d 478, 479 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Hoffa, 382 F. 2d 856, 862 (6th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 924, 88 S.Ct. 854, 19 L.Ed.2d 984 (1968). In making a motion for a new trial based on newly dis covered evidence the defendant must show that the evidence (1) was discovered only after trial, (2) could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence…
• United States v. Garner, 529 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1976)
  …at, at best, this so-called “newly discovered” evidence could be used only to impeach Austin. Motions for a new trial are not favored and are granted only with great caution. United States v. Hoffa, 382 F. 2d 856, 862 (6th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 924, 88 S.Ct. 854, 19 L.Ed.2d 984 (1968). To warrant the ordering of a new trial the newly discovered evidence must be not merely cumulative or impeaching in character, but must be such that it would probably produce a different verdict in the event of…