Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence HENDRIX Defendant-Appellant.

Order

After we affirmed his conviction, 482 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2007), Clarence Hendrix filed in the district court a motion contending that newly discovered evidence calls for a new trial. The district court denied this motion as untimely, and Hendrix has appealed.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b)(1) allows a defendant "3 years after the verdict or finding of guilty" to file a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The jury found Hendrix guilty on May 12, 2005. He therefore had until May 12, 2008, to file a motion under Rule 33(b)(1). His motion, which was filed on May 16, 2007, is timely. The district court did not give any reason for its contrary decision, nor does the prosecutor's brief on appeal supply one.

The prosecutor contends that the motion is substantively deficient because the evidence on which Hendrix relies is not newly discovered and would not justify a new trial even if it were new. But that question should be considered in the first instance by the district court.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a decision on the merits.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

U.S. v. HENDRIX
(Jun 2, 2008)