FEDERAL COURTS--RULE 33 OF RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE--POWER TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL AFTER AFFIRMANCE

Authors

Irving Slifkin S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

One John Memolo was convicted of tax evasion in the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The defendant's motion for a new trial, on the ground of prejudicial conduct of the trial judge, was denied. He then appealed assigning as error all of the grounds stated in his motion and also the denial of the motion for a new trial. The circuit court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The sentence was executed and the defendant imprisoned in a federal penitentiary. Then the district judge reconsidered, and in the interest of justice directed that the judgment be vacated and a new trial granted. The United States petitioned the circuit court of appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the district. judge to set aside his order vacating the judgment and for a writ of prohibition against further proceedings in the cause. The petition for the writs was denied. The government appealed. Held, reversed. The granting of a new trial on the district court's own motion after an affirmance of the original judgment by the circuit court of appeals was improper. United States v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 1330 (1947).

Recommended Citation

Irving Slifkin S.Ed., FEDERAL COURTS--RULE 33 OF RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE--POWER TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL AFTER AFFIRMANCE, 46 Mich. L. Rev. 690 (1948).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss5/17