Review Proceedings

Pages1013-1185
V. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS
NEW TRIAL
On a defendant’s timely motion, a district court may grant a new trial if the inter-
est of justice so requires.
2626
Courts have granted new trials for a variety of reasons
found to be in the interest of justice.
2627
Only a defendant who has been through
V. REVIEW
PROCEEDINGS
2626. FED.R.CRIM. P. 29(d)(1); FED.R.CRIM. P. 33(a); see Mesarosh v. U.S., 352 U.S. 1, 10-14 (1956).
Although a timely filed motion for a new trial is rendered moot when the district court grants a judgment to
acquit, the district judge retains jurisdiction to consider the new trial motion on remand if the acquittal is
reversed on appeal. See, e.g., U.S. v. Lachman, 387 F.3d 42, 59-60 (1st Cir. 2004) (consideration of new trial
motion on remand required where district court failed to rule on defendant’s motion for new trial and acquittal
was vacated); U.S. v. Claxton 766 F.3d 280, 290-91 (3d Cir. 2014) (same); U.S. v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084,
1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (same); U.S. v. Miranda, 425 F.3d 953, 963 (11th Cir. 2005) (same). But see, e.g., U.S. v.
Smith, 739 F.3d 843, 848 (5th Cir. 2014) (consideration of new trial motion on remand precluded because
defendant failed to show error or abuse of discretion in district court’s rejection of new trial motions); U.S. v.
Boesen, 599 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2010) (consideration of new trial motion on remand precluded because
defendant failed to make timely motion for new trial); U.S. v. McGowan, 668 F.3d 601, 605 (9th Cir. 2012)
(consideration of new trial motion on remand precluded because defendant failed to file prerequisite motions
before court); U.S. v. Montgomery, 468 F.3d 715, 721-22 (10th Cir. 2006) (same); U.S. v. Renick, 273 F.3d
1009, 1020-21 (11th Cir. 2001) (same).
For the effect of a new trial motion on timeliness of appeals, see Notice of Appeal in APPEALS in this Part.
2627. See, e.g., U.S. v. Martinez, 994 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2021) (new trial granted because resulting
prejudice from refusing severance was such that convictions could not stand); U.S. v. Stewart, 907 F.3d 677,
688-91 (2d Cir. 2018) (new trial granted because district court’s exclusion of admissible evidence not harmless
to defendant’s case); U.S. v. Harra, 985 F.3d 196, 224-25 (3d Cir. 2021) (new trial granted because trial
environment emphasized legally erroneous theory reflected in jury instructions); U.S. v. Brizuela, 962 F.3d
784, 787 (4th Cir. 2020) (new trial granted because evidence in trial deviated from Federal Rules of Evidence);
U.S. v. Jordan, 958 F.3d 331, 338 (5th Cir. 2020) (new trial granted because Court Security Officer influence on
juror denied 6th Amendment right to fair trial); U.S. v. Lanier, 988 F.3d 284, 296-97 (6th Cir. 2021) (new trial
granted because district court did not notify defendants of juror misconduct, limiting defendants’ opportunity to
prove jury bias); U.S. v. Banks, 982 F.3d 1098, 1105-06 (7th Cir. 2020) (new trial granted because totality of
the circumstances implicated juror coercion); U.S. v. White, 863 F.3d 784, 786-87, 792 (8th Cir. 2017) (en
banc) (new trial granted because jury instructions failed to sufficiently apprise the jury of the government’s
burden); U.S. v. Litwin, 972 F.3d 1155, 1176-78 (9th Cir. 2020) (new trial granted because reason to believe
juror dismissed because of views on merits of case); U.S. v. Chavez, 976 F.3d 1178, 1193 (10th Cir. 2020) (new
trial granted because district court violated best-evidence rule); U.S. v. Brown, 996 F.3d 1171, 1191-94 (11th
Cir. 2021) (en banc) (new trial granted because defendant’s right to unanimous jury violated by dismissal of
juror who made religious statement that did not unambiguously refer to an ‘outside source t[elling] him’ what
to doand therefore did not negate juror’s understanding of legal duty to base decision on evidence); U.S. v.
Driscoll, 984 F.3d 103, 111, 114 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (new trial granted because improper jury instructions coerced
lone holdout juror to surrender honestly held views in favor of unanimous verdict). But see, e.g., U.S. v. Paga
´n-
Romero, 894 F.3d 441, 449 (1st Cir. 2018) (new trial denied because judge’s improper provision of dictionary
to jury did not prejudice jury); U.S. v. McCoy, 995 F.3d 32, 51 (2d Cir. 2021) (new trial denied because juror
had no bias against defendants or in favor of government); U.S. v. Greenspan, 923 F.3d 138, 154-56 (3d Cir.
2019) (new trial denied because cumulative error claim not brought on appeal nor did cumulative error
substantially affect outcome of trial); U.S. v. Millender, 970 F.3d 523, 531-32 (4th Cir. 2020) (new trial denied
because district court failed to explain decision to grant); U.S. v. Piper, 912 F.3d 847, 858 (5th Cir. 2019) (new
trial denied because newly discovered evidence vague and would not have changed result of trial); U.S. v.
Brooks, 987 F.3d 593, 604-05 (6th Cir. 2021) (new trial denied because juror did not make any overt statement
of clear racial bias); U.S. v. Guzman-Cordoba, 988 F.3d 391, 406 (7th Cir. 2021) (new trial denied because
comments by prosecutor would not have influenced outcome of trial, and defendant failed to object to said
comments at trial); U.S. v. Dowty, 964 F.3d 703, 708-09 (8th Cir. 2020) (new trial denied because district court
carefully weighed evidence and assessed credibility before deciding evidence did not favor acquittal); U.S. v.
Bruce, 984 F.3d 884, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2021) (new trial denied because undisclosed evidence did not
undermine confidence in outcome where multiple witnesses corroborated each other and considerable
circumstantial evidence implicated defendant); U.S. v. Khan, 989 F.3d 806, 828-29 (10th Cir. 2021) (new trial
denied because any objectionable testimony followed by curative instruction, and evidence of guilt
overwhelming); U.S. v. Gallardo, 977 F.3d 1126, 1142 (11th Cir. 2020) (new trial denied because weight of
51 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. (2022) 1013
trial may file for a new trial, so this remedy is unavailable to those who pleaded
guilty.
2628
Federal Rules provide that a motion based on newly discovered evidence must be
filed within 3 years after the verdict or finding of guilty.
2629
The states, however,
are free to set their own time limits.
2630
A federal district court does not have jurisdic-
tion to grant a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence if an appeal
is pending.
2631
V. REVIEW
PROCEEDINGS
evidence sufficiently supported jury’s verdict); U.S. v. Browne, 953 F.3d 794, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (new trial
denied because standard jury instructions on witness credibility and potential for bias did not need to include
defendant’s unsupported addition).
Some circuits have held that a court may not grant a new trial on grounds the defendant did not raise. See,
e.g., U.S. v. Cruz-Ramos, 987 F.3d 27, 43 (1st Cir. 2021) (grant of new trial improper in part because of
inadequate briefing and failure to raise argument in opening brief); U.S. v. Kennedy, 682 F.3d 244, 254 (3d Cir.
2012) (grant of new trial improper where court ordered motion sua sponte); U.S. v. Rafiekian, 991 F.3d 529,
551 (4th Cir. 2021) (grant of new trial improper in part because granted on grounds that defendant failed to
include in new trial motion); U.S. v. Shoemaker, 746 F.3d 614, 631-32 (5th Cir. 2014) (grant of new trial
improper where issue of improper jury instructions not raised in motion); U.S. v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1356-
57 (6th Cir. 1993) (grant of new trial improper because appellant failed to raise insufficient evidence claim in
new trial motion); U.S. v. Moore, 363 F.3d 631, 638 (7th Cir. 2004) (same); vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S.
1100 (2005); U.S. v. Frommelt, 971 F.3d 823, 827 n.5 (8th Cir. 2020) (new trial improper in part because
defendant did not develop specific argument for new trial in brief); U.S. v. McGowan, 668 F.3d 601, 604-05
(9th Cir. 2012) (same); U.S. v. Quintanilla, 193 F.3d 1139, 1148-49 (10th Cir. 1999) (grant of new trial
improper after 7-day period expired when made sua sponte on grounds not asserted in motion). But see, e.g.,
U.S. v. Taylor, 176 F.3d 331, 335 (6th Cir. 1999) (trial court had jurisdiction to order new trial after 7-day
period expired based on issue of flawed jury instructions that was not raised).
2628. See, e.g., U.S. v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir. 1995) (defendant who pleaded guilty could not
seek new trial under Rule 33 because defendant waived right to trial); U.S. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 n.3 (3d
Cir. 1999) (same); U.S. v. Prince, 533 F.2d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 1976) (defendant who pleaded no contest could
not seek new trial under Rule 33 because defendant waived right to trial); U.S. v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104
(9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (defendant who pleaded guilty could not seek new trial under Rule 33 because
defendant waived right to trial); U.S. v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir. 1979) (same). The Sixth Circuit
has held that a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to appeal in a sentencing agreement
could not seek a new trial. See U.S. v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2001).
2629. FED.R.CRIM. P. 33(b); see, e.g., U.S. v. Connolly, 504 F.3d 206, 210 (1st Cir. 2007) (defendant’s
motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence timely when filed within 3 years after conviction);
U.S. v. Williamson, 706 F.3d 405, 415 (4th Cir. 2013) (same; motion denied on other grounds); U.S. v. Ebron,
683 F.3d 105, 157-58 (5th Cir. 2012) (defendant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence
timely when filed within 3 years after conviction; motion denied on other grounds); U.S. v. O’Malley, 833 F.3d
810, 813 (7th Cir. 2016) (defendant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence timely when
filed within 3 years of trial); U.S. v. Battles, 745 F.3d 436, 446-47 (10th Cir. 2014) (defendant’s motion for new
trial based on newly discovered evidence timely when filed within 3 years of trial). But see, e.g., U.S. v.
Camacho, 370 F.3d 303, 304-05 (2d Cir. 2004) (defendant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered
evidence untimely when filed approximately 5 years after jury’s verdict); U.S. v. Erwin, 277 F.3d 727, 731-33
(5th Cir. 2001) (defendant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence untimely when filed
more than 13 years after conviction); U.S. v. Monus, 356 F.3d 714, 716-17 (6th Cir. 2004) (defendant’s motion
for new trial based on newly discovered evidence untimely when filed more than 5 years after conviction); U.S.
v. Berry, 624 F.3d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant’s motion for new trial untimely when filed almost 10
years after conviction, though court analyzed merits of claim because government failed to object).
A motion to set aside a conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not restart or delay the running of the 3-year
time limit for filing the motion. See, e.g., U.S. v. Camacho, 370 F.3d 303, 308 (2d Cir. 2004) (collateral attack
on conviction or sentence does not affect timeliness of Rule 33 motion); Mankarious v. U.S., 282 F.3d 940, 945
(7th Cir. 2002) (same); Barnes v. U.S., 437 F.3d 1074, 1079 (11th Cir. 2006) (same).
2630. These limits may be significantly shorter than the federal limit. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390,
409-11 (1993).
2631. FED.R. CRIM . P. 33(b)(1). The court may hear and deny the motion while an appeal is pending, but
the court may not grant the motion until the case is remanded. See U.S. v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n.42
(1984); see, e.g., U.S. v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 77 (1st Cir. 1995) (motion to vacate sentence denied when case
had not been remanded); Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 123 n.7 (3d Cir. 1985) (When a new trial is sought
under Rule 33, while the direct appeal is pending, a district court has power to deny the motion and to grant the
1014 51 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. (2022)
To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the defendant must
show that (1) the evidence was discovered after trial;
2632
(2) the failure to learn of the
V. REVIEW
PROCEEDINGS
motion once the court’s intention to do the latter has been certified to the appellate court and the case
remanded.); Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891-92 (4th Cir. 1999) (district court had
jurisdiction to hear and deny new trial motion while appeal was pending); U.S. v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 857-58
(5th Cir. 1982) (same); U.S. v. Warner, 10 F.3d 1236, 1239-40 (6th Cir. 1993) (same); U.S. v. Goodwin, 770
F.2d 631, 639 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (same); U.S. v. Coplen, 533 F.3d 929, 930 n.2 (8th Cir. 2008) (same); U.S. v.
Frame, 454 F.2d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (same); U.S. v. Draper, 746 F.2d 662, 665-66 (10th
Cir. 1984) (same); U.S. v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975, 976 (11th Cir. 1990) (same); U.S. v. Quinn, 475 F.3d 1289,
1290-91 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (case temporarily suspended until district court denies motion for new trial or certifies
its intent to grant motion to Court of Appeals who could remand case).
2632. Information known by the defendant at the time of trial does not constitute newly discovered
evidence. See, e.g., U.S. v. Peake, 874 F.3d 65, 72-73 (1st Cir. 2017) (change in the law not considered newly
discovered evidence within the purview of Rule 33); U.S. v. Forbes, 790 F.3d 403, 407-11 (2d Cir. 2015)
(testimony from coconspirator who had invoked 5th Amendment privilege not considered newly discovered
evidence when defendant was aware of purportedly exculpatory evidence before and during trial); U.S. v. Noel,
905 F.3d 258, 270-74 (3d Cir. 2018) (evidence of juror misconduct not considered newly discovered because
reasonable diligence into juror’s voir dire response would have revealed it); U.S. v. Ali, 991 F.3d 561, 571 (4th
Cir. 2021) (declaration filed after trial not considered newly discovered evidence because its substance
consisted of observations made during trial); U.S. v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 359 n.34 (5th Cir. 2005) (testimony
of private investigator not considered newly discovered evidence when defendant had access before trial); U.S.
v. Olender, 338 F.3d 629, 635-36 (6th Cir. 2003) (court order indicating defendant no longer felon not
considered newly discovered evidence when order was new interpretation of previously presented evidence);
U.S. v. Westmoreland, 712 F.3d 1066, 1073 (7th Cir. 2013) (affidavits from defendant’s friends stating that
investigating officer began affair with defendant’s wife during investigation not considered newly discovered
evidence when defendant knew but made no effort to find witnesses before trial); U.S. v. Erickson, 999 F.3d
622, 631 (8th Cir. 2021) (audio recording of testimony was not newly discovered evidence when defendant
already had substantially similar written summary); U.S. v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2013)
(change in law which plaintiff alleged negated grounds for conviction not considered new evidence because
changes in law do not constitute newly discovered evidence); U.S. v. Hill, 737 F.3d 683, 688-89 (10th Cir.
2013) (opinion testimony not considered newly discovered evidence because it was deemed inadmissible); U.S.
v. Brown, 934 F.3d 1278, 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (enhanced video of the incident did not constitute newly
discovered evidence); U.S. v. Dale, 991 F.2d 819, 838-39 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (testimony of coconspirators who
refused to testify at trial not considered newly discovered evidence because defendant knew testimony’s value
at time of trial).
The majority of circuits have held that Rule 33 does not authorize district courts to grant new trials on the
basis of unavailable evidence because it is not newly discovered. See, e.g., U.S. v. Forbes, 790 F.3d 403, 409
(2d Cir. 2015) (holding that post-trial testimony of witness who invoked 5th Amendment privilege during trial
not newly discovered evidence because unavailable during trial for law-based reason); Weaver v. U.S., 793
F.3d 857, 865 (8th Cir. 2015) (belated exculpatory testimony by codefendant who did not testify at trial not
considered newly discovered evidence, but newly available); U.S. v. Orr, 692 F.3d 1079, 1099-100 (10th Cir.
2012) (witness’s availability upon return from Africa not newly discovered but newly available). But see, e.g.,
U.S. v. Hernandez-Rodriguez, 443 F.3d 138, 143-44 (1st Cir. 2006) (newly discovered evidence includes
codefendant’s exculpatory affidavit, which was unavailable at time of trial due to 5th Amendment privilege).
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not constitute newly discovered evidence if the claim is
based on information known to the defendant at the time of trial, even if the defendant did not appreciate the
legal significance of the information until later. See, e.g., U.S. v. Lenz, 577 F.3d 377, 382 (1st Cir. 2009)
(ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on alleged failure to contact victim to ascertain whether victim
would corroborate testimony not newly discovered evidence because defendant and counsel knew substance of
defendant’s conversations with victim at time of trial); U.S. v. Castillo, 14 F.3d 802, 805 (2d Cir. 1994)
(ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on counsel’s alleged failure to allow defendant to testify not
newly discovered evidence); U.S. v. DeRewal, 10 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting that language from
other circuits certainly suggest[s] that newly discovered evidence must generally, if not always, be related to
the issues at trial, not to separate legal claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel); U.S. v. Smith, 62 F.3d
641, 648 (4th Cir. 1995) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim not newly discovered evidence under Rule
33); U.S. v. Ugalde, 861 F.2d 802, 806 (5th Cir. 1988) (same); U.S. v. Hall, 979 F.3d 1107, 1125 (6th Cir. 2020)
(ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim not newly discovered evidence when defendant already had reason to
know of prejudice at time of verdict and during trial); U.S. v. Brown, 742 F.2d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 1984)
(ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim not newly discovered evidence because defendant knew of counsel’s
misconduct before and during trial); U.S. v. Laird, 948 F.2d 444, 446 (8th Cir. 1991) (ineffective-assistance-of-
51 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. (2022) 1015

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT