United States v. Wilkinson

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Thompson

    5:23-cr-40049-TC-1 (D. Kan. Dec. 18, 2024)

    For those reasons, Thompson is not entitled to a new trial based on this specific evidence. See, e.g., United States v. McCullough, 457 F.3d 1150, 1167-68 (10th Cir. 2006) (concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial where the defendant failed to satisfy one element of the standard outlined above); see also United States v. Velarde, 860 Fed.Appx. 132, 137-40 (10th Cir. 2021) (applying the standard above and then holding that, since the defendant's various instances of alleged new evidence failed to meet one or more of the five elements, he was not entitled to a new trial); United States v. Wilkinson, 526 Fed.Appx. 874, 879 (10th Cir. 2013) (concluding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant failed to show, among other things, that the new evidence was not merely impeaching, nor that it was of such a nature that, were a new trial held, an acquittal would be the probable result).

  2. United States v. Durham

    CR-14-231-R (W.D. Okla. Jan. 26, 2016)

    Id. at 560.United States v. Wilkinson, 526 Fed.Appx. 874, 879 (10th Cir. 2013). The Court concludes that Defendant has not presented admissible evidence that if accepted as true would warrant relief, and thus an evidentiary hearing is not required and would not assist the Court in resolution of the instant motion.