Case Name: UNITED STATES v. SIMMONS
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1878-05-27
Citations: 27 F. Cas. 1080
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES v. SIMMONS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 27
Pages: 1080–1080

Head Matter:
Case No. 16,289.
UNITED STATES v. SIMMONS.
[14 Blatchf. 473.]
Circuit Court, E. D. New York.
May 27, 1878.
New Trial—Delay op Application.
After the conviction of a defendant, he moved in arrest of judgment, and the ease went to the supreme court on a certificate of a division of opinion. After a decision by that court, the defendant moved m this court for a new trial: HeltL, that it was too late to make such a motion.
[This was an indictment against Stephen J. Simmons charging the violation of . certain provisions of an act of congress relating to distilled spirits. Heard on a motion for a new trial.)
Asa W. Tenney, U. S. Dist. Atty.
John J. Allen, for defendant.

Opinion:
BENEDICT, District Judge.
The defendant was tried and convicted in May, 1875. There is no minute of any motion for a new trial having been then entered. A motion in arrest of judgment was made, which was argued and re-argued, and, a' difference of opinion having arisen, the case went to the supreme court of the United States, upon a certificate of division. The decision of the appellate court having been made during the present month [06 U. S. 360], the defendant now applies to have a day fixed for the hearing of a motion for a new trial. The application comes too late. If any objection was intended to be made to the verdict, a motion for a new trial should have been promptly made. No reason for the delay has been suggested, and. to permit such a motion^ to be now made, after the lapse of three years, and where, as may well be supposed, the witnesses are scattered, would be highly improper. Ordinarily, it is too late, after a motion in arrest of judgment has been made, to apply for a new trial; and, although, when a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment have been entered simultaneously, and the latter is first argued, by direction of the court, the former may be thereafter argued, yet, in a case like this, when the question of a new trial is, for the first time, raised after the decision upon the motion in arrest, it cannot be entertained. The motion is, therefore, denied.