Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
07-2869•United States of America v. Clarence Hendrix
07-2869Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit02.06.2008
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 29, 2008∗
Decided June 2, 2008
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
No. 07-2869
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLARENCE HENDRIX,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 04 CR 757
James B. Zagel, Judge.
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
∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After
examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P.
32.1Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-2869 Page 2
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.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.