United States v. Walter Earl Stephenson
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Earl STEPHENSON, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.