Legal Opinion

Tillman v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 1, 1953No. 1326PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

QUINN, Associate Judge.

The sole question on this appeal is whether appellant, hereinafter called defendant, is entitled to a reversal because of the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial. Defendant was convicted on a charge of assault. After conviction, he filed a motion for a new trial alleging several errors, but the only one urged on this appeal is that he was tried without his witness being called to testify. In the record before us is what defendant terms an affidavit of this witness. The “affidavit” was not sworn to but was merely signed by one Lillie Mae Howard,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. TuthaMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
  2. State v. DouglasWashington Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Imhoff v. WalkerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
  4. Brown v. HaasDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950
  5. Gomez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1942

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Coates v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Fatemi v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1963
  3. Hines v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1969

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API