Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Michael Nigro, 12331 (1958)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 12331 Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 26, 1958
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 253 F.2d 587 UNITED STATES of America v. Michael NIGRO, Appellant. No. 12331. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued March 6, 1958. Decided March 26, 1958. Jack Pincus, New Brunswick, N. J., for appellant. John D. Wooley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Manasquan, N. J. (Chester A. Weidenburner, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee. Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 The issue presented is whether the court below abused its d
More

253 F.2d 587

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Michael NIGRO, Appellant.

No. 12331.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 6, 1958.

Decided March 26, 1958.

Jack Pincus, New Brunswick, N. J., for appellant.

John D. Wooley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Manasquan, N. J. (Chester A. Weidenburner, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The issue presented is whether the court below abused its discretion in denying the defendant-appellant's, Nigro's, motion for a new trial based on alleged newly-discovered evidence. There was no manifest abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying the motion. It is well settled that a new trial will not be granted unless it be apparent that the new evidence would probably produce a different verdict after a new trial. The evidence offered by Nigro does not meet this test.

2

Accordingly the order of the court below denying the motion for a new trial will be affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer