Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Robert Eugene Weed v. United States, 380 F.2d 914, 10th Cir. (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling on an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial. The appellant, Robert Eugene Weed, had been convicted of a Dyer Act offense for transporting a stolen vehicle across state lines. He filed a motion for a new trial based on an affidavit from his co-defendant Ballard, who had testified against Weed at trial, claiming that Ballard had falsely testified. The trial court held a hearing where Ballard testified and found that his original testimony was credible and the recantation was not. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Robert Eugene Weed v. United States, 380 F.2d 914, 10th Cir. (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is a court ruling on an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial. The appellant, Robert Eugene Weed, had been convicted of a Dyer Act offense for transporting a stolen vehicle across state lines. He filed a motion for a new trial based on an affidavit from his co-defendant Ballard, who had testified against Weed at trial, claiming that Ballard had falsely testified. The trial court held a hearing where Ballard testified and found that his original testimony was credible and the recantation was not. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1967-07-21 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 380 F.2d 914 Docket: 9229

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court ruling on an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial. The appellant, Robert Eugene Weed, had been convicted of a Dyer Act offense for transporting a stolen vehicle across state lines. He filed a motion for a new trial based on an affidavit from his co-defendant Ballard, who had testified against Weed at trial, claiming that Ballard had falsely testified. The trial court held a hearing where Ballard testified and found that his original testimony was credible and the recantation was not. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Robert Eugene Weed v. United States, 380 F.2d 914, 10th Cir. (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling on an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial. The appellant, Robert Eugene Weed, had been convicted of a Dyer Act offense for transporting a stolen vehicle across state lines. He filed a motion for a new trial based on an affidavit from his co-defendant Ballard, who had testified against Weed at trial, claiming that Ballard had falsely testified. The trial court held a hearing where Ballard testified and found that his original testimony was credible and the recantation was not. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    380 F.

    2d 914

    Robert Eugene WEED, Appellant,


    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
    No. 9229.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    July 21, 1967.

    Earl S. Wylder, Reno, Nev., for appellant.


    Newell A. George, U.S. Atty. (Thomas E. Joyce, Asst. U.S. Atty., was
    with him on the brief), for appellee.
    Before PHILLIPS, LEWIS and HILL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of
    Kansas denying appellant's motion for new trial made pursuant to Rule 33,
    Fed.R.Crim.P. Appellant had been convicted of a Dyer Act offense, 18 U.S.C.
    2312, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal to this court. Weed v. United
    States, 10 Cir., 340 F.2d 827. Appellant's motion was premised upon the
    affidavit of one Ballard, a co-defendant, to the effect that he, Ballard, had
    falsely testified as a prosecution witness at appellant's trial. The trial court, in
    full recognition of the importance of Ballard's original testimony as a
    contributing factor to appellant's conviction and the requirements to serve 'the
    interest of justice' under Rule 33, Ledet v. United States, 5 Cir., 297 F.2d 737,
    conducted a full evidentiary hearing. Ballard, presently serving a California
    state sentence for armed robbery, appeared and testified pursuant to a writ of
    habeas corpus ad testificandum.

    Our appellate review is limited to a consideration of whether the trial court


    plainly abused his discretion in determining that Ballard's testimony at trial was
    credible and that his recantation was not. Casias v. United States, 10 Cir., 350
    F.2d 317. We find nothing in the record that would indicate in any way such an
    abuse of discretion. The judgment is accordingly

    Affirmed.

    You might also like