| NY | Jul 8, 1930

The affidavits proving or tending to prove that contradictory statements were made by the witness Woodbury, while not sufficient in themselves to require a new trial, were, none the less, of such importance that the cause of justice would be promoted by causing Woodbury to be produced as a witness and subjected to the test of cross-examination.

Following the practice in People v. Shilitano (215 N.Y. 715" court="NY" date_filed="1915-06-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/people-v--shilitano-3608692?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3608692">215 N.Y. 715), the determination of the appeal will be withheld until the fall session of the court to the end that an *566 opportunity may be given to the defendant to renew his motions for a new trial and an opportunity given to the trial judge to require the production of witnesses before him.

© 2024 Midpage AI does not provide legal advice. By using midpage, you consent to our Terms and Conditions.