Opinion ID: 275773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Suppression of Evidence

Text: 19 The Appellants rely principally on the affidavit of one Simpson, a convicted perjurer with a long criminal record. Simpson's affidavit was contradicted by counter-affidavits. Part of Simpson's affidavit relates to evidence impeaching Partin as a narcotics user. But Partin's alleged addiction to narcotics was fully explored at the trial and no the appeals, and is not new. Cumulative impeaching evidence of this type affords no basis for a new trial. Mesarosh v. United States, supra; United States v. West, supra. 20 Similarly, the affidavit of Rena Mae Booth relative to narcotics, is not newly discovered evidence. She testified for the defense at the trial. 21 Also, the alleged threat to Lester Bloomenstiel, before he testified, is not new, as an attempt was made to go into this subject at the trial. 22 Relative to the claim that the records of Local No. 5 were suppressed, it appears that the Trial Judge quashed a subpoena for these records. 23 Simpson's affidavit relating to what Mildred Kelly told him is pure hearsay. In any event, the question could have been raised at the trial, and is not newly discovered evidence. 24 It can hardly be claimed that Partin prevented Simpson from testifying at the trial. Simpson was subpoenaed as a witness by the defense, and appeared at the court house in response thereto. His affidavit indicates that he talked there with Hoffa's attorney Bufalino. He says that Bufalino told him to 'wait until the talked to the other lawyers so that he could see when I would be needed. I did not hear from Bufalino after that.' If Appellants desired to complain about Partin's interference, they should have raised this issue at their trial. 25 It is not unreasonable to infer the reason that the defense did not all Simpson as a witness was because of his extensive criminal record. 26 Affirmed.