Jones v. Scurr

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “exculpatory evidence that was unavailable, but known, at the time of trial is not newly discovered evidence” and “already convicted codefendants have nothing to lose by making statements that exculpate defendant”
• explaining that courts look with disfavor on motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence because they “upset an end to litigation”
• concluding the codefendants’ recantation of their testimony at trial did not constitute newly discovered evidence and would not have affected the outcome of the trial
• explaining that courts look with disfavor on motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence because they “upset an end to litigation”
• explaining that courts look with disfavor on motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence because they “upset an end to litigation”
• holding unavailable testimony from a co-defendant is not newly discovered evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).