SCHMITZ

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398 (10th Cir. 1977)
  …be such as would probably produce an acquittal; and a new trial is not warranted by evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered and produced at trial. United States v. Leyba, 504 F. 2d 441, 442-43 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 934, 95 S.Ct. 1139, 43 L.Ed.2d 408. The motion is not regarded with favor and is granted only with great caution, being addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Perea, 458 F. 2d 535, 536 (10th Cir.). The trial court held he…
• United States v. Maestas, 523 F.2d 316 (10th Cir. 1975)
  …1965). The grant of a motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the Trial Court. Denial of the motion will not be reviewed absent a plain abuse of discretion. United States V. Leyba, 504 F. 2d 441 (10th Cir. 1974), cert. denied 420 U.S. 934, 95 S.Ct. 1139, 43 L.Ed.2d 408; United States v. Perea, supra; King v. United States, 402 F. 2d 289 (10th Cir. 1968). Before a new trial for newly discovered evidence should be granted, the defendant has the burden to show that the evidence was dis…
• United States v. Combs, 634 F.2d 1295 (10th Cir. 1980)
  …k, robbery and bank larceny as proscribed in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (b) are lesser and greater forms of the same offense and hence may not be the basis of cumulative punishment. United States v. Leyba, 504 F. 2d 441 (10th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 934, 95 S.Ct. 1139, 43 L.Ed.2d 408 (1975) (separate penalties under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (b) and (d) improper, whether imposed consecutively or concurrently). See also Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370 (1957); Kienlen v…